PROPRIETOR, ALAGAR BLUE METAL (CRUSHER) Vs. V. PALANIVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is Alagar Blue Metal Crusher Unit. It is a stone crushing unit. According to the respondent, he was working as crusher operator on daily wages basis on 08.10.2009. On 08.10.2009, while he was working at 2.00 a.m., a belt broke down during the employment and the hand of the respondent got struck up in the wheels and he was serious injured. He was immediately taken to M/s.KMC Hospital, Tiruchirappalli and he was treated as in-patient from 08.10.2009 to 13.10.2009 and thereafter he was treated in a Government Hospital, Chennai and also at M/s.CMC Hospital, Vellore. He was also treated as in-patient in the Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore. The doctor certified that he suffered 60% partial permanent disability. Since the appellant failed to pay compensation, the respondent filed W.C.No.244 of 2010 claiming compensation for the injuries suffered out of and in the course of employment. The claim was resisted by the appellant on the ground that he was not employed by the appellant. However, the appellant admitted that the accident took place within his factory premises. According to him, the victim was employed as menial by the workers who are employed by him. It is also stated that the workmen who are employed by the appellant are related to the respondent and those workmen engaged him as a menial servant to look after their needs. No further details are given in the counter statement.

(2.) It is admitted that the accident took place in the factory premises. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent was a menial servant employed by the workmen who are employed by the appellant for carrying out the crushing operations. The respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and he was extensively cross-examined. Thereafter, he examined another witness who is his brother. He was also said to have been employed in the appellant - Crushing Unit. The respondent also examined a Doctor to prove the disability. Exs.A1 to A16 were marked on the side of the respondent-claimant. Thereafter, the son of the Proprietor of the appellant was examined. It is stated so by Mr.Sathyaraj, who was examined as a witness on behalf of the appellant that he is the son of the Proprietor of the Stone Crushing Unit. He also spoke in terms of the pleadings already made. The evidence of the appellant also states that the appellant spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. After hearing both the sides, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirappalli passed an order dated 05.08.2013 directing the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs.2,34,835/-. The appeal is filed as against the aforesaid order.

(3.) Notice of motion was ordered and the respondent entered appearance. Though five questions of law have been raised in the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has confined his submission and submitted that the finding of the Tribunal is totally perverse and the respondent failed to establish that he was a workman employed by the appellant particularly when the appellant categorically stated that he was not employed by the appellant.