SAMBASIVA CHETTI Vs. MANNANKATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (which would be referred to hereafterwards as the Act) of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, awarding compensation to the respondent for the fatal injury sustained by his wife, Vellachi, in the course of her employment. The employer is the appellant. The deceased was one of the coolies employed in the construction of a house by the appellant. The construction of the building began several months previous to the accident and by June 1957 the ground floor had been completed and a terrace was in the process of being put up. On 17 June 1956, the work on the terrace was proceeding. The deceased Vellachi was engaged in bringing water for mixing up the jelly for the construction. It is now found that the place where the jelly was being mixed up was just about a foot away from the unprotected edge of the terrace. The deceased, after pouring water on the jelly evidently turned back, slipped and fell down a height of 20 feet. Death followed instantaneously. The respondent, the husband of the deceased, who was himself a disabled person, applied to the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, under Section 30 of the Act, for compensation on the footing that he was a dependant on the deceased.

(2.) THE claim was contested by the employer on several grounds. The Commissioner held that the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Act, that the jelly was mixed near the edge of the first floor of the building, that the deceased sustained the injury in the course of her employment which was not of a casual nature and awarded a compensation to the respondent in a sum of Rs. 900.

(3.) THE employer thereupon filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Act against the order awarding compensation. The appeal was filed in this Court on 1 October 1958. The memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant had deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. This is required to be done under the proviso to Section 30 of the Act. This defect was pointed out by the office of the Registrar when the papers were returned to the advocate for the appellant on 31 October 1958. The advocate for the appellant represented the appeal on 3 November 1958 and so far as the requisition referred to above was concerned he stated thus: "as and when this appeal is passed and about to be posted, this will be complied and receipt produced. " The officer did not accept this to be sufficient compliance of its previous return and made a fresh return of the papers. Thereupon the employer made the deposit with the Commissioner on 10 December 1958, obtained a certificate to that effect and enclosed the same in the appeal memorandum and represented the appeal. It must be stated that if the appeal were deemed to be filed on 10 December 1958 it would be barred by limitation.