KUPPUSWAMY NAIDU Vs. KESTHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment was delivered by : This appeal is directed against the order dated 22-1-1991 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I (Commissioner for Workmen's compensation) Madras-6 in W. C. No. 8 of 1989. Brief facts of the case are : - THE deceased Poochandran, husband of the first respondents and father of Respondents 2 to 4, was a workman employed by the appellant and the fifth respondent. On 6-8-1988, he had sustained personal injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment in deepening the well, in the land of the appellant. Poochandran succumbed to the injuries on 14-8-1988. After his death, the respondents 1 to 4 who are the dependents of the deceased, filed the claim petition before the Deputy commissioner of Labour, claiming of Rs. 29, 949/- as compensation and the same was ordered. As against the same, this appeal has been preferred. THE appellant, in his counter had stated that the deceased Poochandran was not a workman under him and he was not at all employed for deepening of the well by the appellant. It is stated that digging of a new well was entrusted to the fifth respondent viz. , Chengaiya Naidu and he had employed his own coolies. THE deceased was an agriculturist and he was not a workman under the appellant. It is further stated that when the work of a digging of the new well was in progress, the deceased appears to have climbed upon the loose sand, slipped and fell down and that; therefore, he had not sustained any injuries out of and in the course of his employment under the appellant.

(2.) KASTURI, wife of the deceased Poochandran, was examined as P. W. 1, who in her evidence had stated that her husband was employed by the appellant for digging of a new well and during the said work, there was a landslide, in which he caught and sustained injuries and subsequently he died. Chengaiya Naidu, the fifth respondent herein was the person, who reported the accident to the police on 14-8-1988 and the same was registered as the first Information Report, wherein it is stated that on 6-8-1988, he along with the deceased Poochandran, Krishna Naidu, Munirathnam, Manikkam and Govindan along with women workers were employed for digging a new well of the appellant and there was a landslide in which, the deceased Poochandran was caught. He was pulled out and thereafter, he was admitted in the hospital and died due to the injuries sustained by him. But, when he was examined on behalf of the appellant as R. W. 2, he had given a different version altogether stating that the deceased Poochandran had fallen due to the sliding of the mud and he was pulled out and then, he went to home and dies after 12 days. He also denied about the employment of the Poochandran as a worker under the appellant.