(1.) THE applicant in W. C. No. 71 of 1994 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-I, Madras-6, against the dismissal of his petition for compensation, has filed this appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (herein referred to as "the Act" ).
(2.) THE brief facts are as follows: the appellant herein filed a claim under Section 10 (1) of the Act against proprietrix by name V. Gayathri Devi, first respondent herein, the Secretary, Lotus Colony Flat Owners' Association-2nd respondent herein and Perumal Maistry-third respondent herein claiming compensation for the injuries said to have been sustained by him in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment on 19-5-93. According to him, he was a mason and he employed through the 3rd respondent by 1st and 2nd respondents to do masonry and repair work at the Housing Board Ownership Flats situated at Lotus Colony, Nandanam, Madras-35. On 19-5-1993 at about 3-00 P. M. , when the applicant and three others including the third respondent were doing masonry work by standing on a scaffolding at Flat No. 7, third floor of 'l' Block, the said scaffolding suddenly broken and the applicant fell down from the third floor and met with an accident in the course of his employment. Due to the accident, he sustained multiple grievous injuries on his head, right side body, right leg and other parts of body. Initially he had treatment at Government Royapettah Hospital from 19-5-93 to 27-5-93 and again on 4-6-93, thereafter he went to Stanley Medical College Hospital and then to Government Eye Hospital, Egmore from where he was referred to Government General Hospital for admission as in-patient till 28-6-93. He became a disabled person and his permanent disability is assessed at 55 per cent. He was earning Rs. 50/- per day and his age was 35 years at the time of accident. It is his claim that since the accident occurred during the course of employment under first and second respondents through third respondent, all of them were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to an extent of Rs. 1,97,000/ -. Since they failed to comply with his notice dated 17-7-93, he approached the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation for necessary relief.
(3.) THE first respondent in his counter has stated that she wanted to make some minor alterations and the work was entrusted to third respondent. It was the third respondent who carried out the work and long after the completion of work, she came to know that the applicant who was engaged as a Helper by the third respondent fell down from the scaffolding and suffered a minor injury. The applicant cannot claim compensation on the basis of permanent disability suffered by him. There was no privity of contract between the first respondent and the applicant. The repair work undertaken at the instance of the first opposite party was of casual nature and it was not for any business or trade and as such the applicant is not a workman as contemplated under Section 2 (n) of the Act. The claim is not maintainable under law.