H. CHIMANLAL JAIN Vs. E. RANGANATHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the award dated 15.10.2009, made in W.C. No. 353 of 2006, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner-II of Labour, Office of the Commissioner-II, Workmen's Compensation, Teynampet, Chennai-6, respondent No. 3 herein, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,52,489, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent, the appellant has preferred this appeal. It is the case of the respondent workman that he was a mason under the opposite party No. 1, who was the supervisor. Appellant has been arrayed as the opposite party No. 2. That on 12.12.2005, at about 4.30 p.m., when the respondent workman was working in the appellant's company, at old No. 22, new No. 24, Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Chennai-2, under the supervision of the opposite party No. 1, he fell down from the building and sustained a fracture of the calcaneus in the right foot and other multiple injuries all over the body. Both the opposite parties admitted the respondent workman in the Government General Hospital, Chennai and he was treated as inpatient from 12.12.2005 to 13.12.2005. After discharge, he took treatment in Puthur, Andhra Pradesh. According to the respondent workman, at the time of accident he was aged 28 years and due to the accident he has permanently lost his earning capacity. Therefore, he sent a legal notice to both the parties to pay adequate compensation. Since both the opposite parties did not come forward to settle the claim, the respondent-claimant filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

(2.) R.C. Company, opposite party No. 2, represented by H. Chimanlal Jain, in its counter-affidavit, has admitted that he is the owner of the above said premises and that he has entered into a construction agreement with the opposite party No. 1 to construct a multi-storied building. As per the agreement, the opposite party No. 1 should be solely and exclusively liable for any injury to any of the employees, during the course of employment. Therefore, the owner of the building, opposite party No. 2, in its counter-affidavit, has submitted that the opposite party No. 1, who is the employer, alone is liable to pay compensation, if any. According to the opposite party No. 2, he is in no way connected with the employment of the petitioner. All the allegations levelled against the opposite party No. 2 have been denied. According to him, there is no employer-employee relationship and hence, claim petition is not maintainable. Without prejudice to the above, R.C. Company, opposite party No. 2, has disputed the age and other aspects.

(3.) Before the Commissioner, the respondent workman examined himself as AW1. AW 2 is the co-employee and AW 3 is the doctor who examined the respondent workman, with reference to the medical records. Discharge summary, Exh. A1, documents showing treatment given in Puthur, Exh. A2, photographs negative, Exh. A3, identity card issued by the construction workers' union, Exh. A4, legal notice, Exh. A5, disability certificate, Exh. A6, and X-rays, Exh. A7, have been marked on the side of the respondent workman. Both the opposite parties have examined themselves as RWs 1 and 2 respectively and marked reply notice, Exh. R1, acknowledgment card, Exh. R2 and reply notice, Exh. R3.