MANAGEMENT RAJA PLANTATIONS PVT LTD Vs. ANGUTHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal has been filed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner for Labour, Coimbatore, dated 23-12-1982 made in W.C. Case No. 51 of 1982 whereunder the authority below awarded a compensation of Rs. 16,800/- to the first respondent on account of the death of her husband, late Maran.

(2.) THE case of the first respondent before the authority below was that her husband Maran was working with the appellant as a cleaner-cum-loader in the motor vehicle belonging to the appellant bearing registration No. MDN 5850, that on 21-8-1981 when the deceased was unloading coal in the leased premises of the appellant, the lorry suddenly moved back as a result of which the deceased Maran fell down from lorry and got his spinal cord injured, that he was rushed to the CM.C. Hospital, Coimbatore, he died the next day and hence the application was made before the authority below under S. 10 of the workmen's Compensation Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 21,000/- on her behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter on the plea that the deceased was earning Rs. 450/- per month.

(3.) THE authority below while discussing the evidence found that the registers produced do not disclose the correct state of affairs to arrive at such a conclusion. THE authority below relied upon the absence of the very name of R.W. 1, who was admittedly the driver of the vehicle in question in the registers produced. That apart, the authority below referred to the fact that even in the payment registers filed, no signatures seem to have been obtained to vouch safe the payment of salary. In the circumstances while weighing the evidence on either side, the authority below thought fit to come to the conclusion on the ?basis of some evidence which, in my view, is relevant for the purpose that the deceased was a worker under the appellant and the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment as a result of which the authority below awarded a compensation of Rs. 16,800/-. THE conclusions of the authority below cannot be said to be vitiated on account of any perversity of approach or total lack of any evidence. An appeal under S. 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act lies to this Cour t only on a substantial question of law and I do not consider that within the requirements of the said Section there is any scope for interference in the present appeal. THE court sitting in appeal under 6.30 of the Workmens Compensation Act does not function as a regular court of appeal with liberty to reappreciate the evidence. I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the authority below. THE appeal fails and is dismissed. THEre will be no order as to costs.