SATAPPA SHARNAPPA AUTE Vs. MAHADEO SHIVRAM MASHALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order dated 12th January, 1987, directing the present appellants (the original Respondent Nos. 1 to 3) to pay to the Respondent (the original Applicant) a sum of Rs. 14,700/- towards compensation for the permanent disability, to the extent of fifty per cent, caused to him during the course of his employment with the Appellants, is under challenge in the present first appeal filed by the Appellants under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. (The parties would be referred by me hereinafter as the Appellant-employers and the Respondent-employee ).

(2.) THE facts are in a very narrow compass. The Respondent-employee, when he had filed the application for compensation, was 19 years young boy and was engaged for doing the labourer's job by the Appellant-employers who are agriculturists, owning a crusher machine installed in their land. The Respondent-employee was employed to operate the crusher machine by putting sugarcane therein. He was employed on daily wages of Rs. 15/ -. On the fateful day of 31st March, 1985, while operating the said machine, he got cut four fingers of his right hand. After the accident he was treated in a hospital. He lost his four fingers due to the accident which arose out of and during the course of his employment as a labourer under the Appellant-employers. After sending a legal notice to the employers the Respondent employee filed the present Application for compensation under the provisions of the Act. There was no reply to the notice sent by the Respondent-employee from the Appellant-employers. The plea in the written statement filed by the Appellants-employers before the learned Commissioner was that the Respondent-employee was not employed by them but was employed by one Ramling Awate to whom the crushing machine was given on hire charges. The Appellant-employers have disowned any liability on that ground only. They pleaded that it was Shri Ramling Awate alone who was liable to pay compensation. The factum of the accident and the injury is not denied. On the basis of the pleadings the learned Commissioner has framed the following issues and after recording evidence, oral and documentary, he answered all the issues in favour of the Respondent-employee, as under:-

(3.) BY the impugned judgment and order the Appellant-employers are directed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 14,700/- towards the compensation only. The learned Commissioner has not awarded any interest and penalty as provided under the Act. The learned Commissioner has categorically held, on the basis of the evidence before him, that the Appellant-employers alone were liable to pay the compensation to the Respondent-employee. The learned Commissioner has not accepted their plea that Shri Ramling Awate was liable to pay the compensation. The learned Commissioner has turned down the plea of the Appellants-employer that since the crusher machine was given on hire to the said Shri Awate he became liable to pay the compensation. The learned Commissioner has appreciated and assessed the whole evidence and has come to the conclusions as recorded, while answering the issues framed by him. The learned Commissioner has given reasons for his conclusions. I have gone through the evidence and also the impugned judgment. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said judgment and order of the learned Commissioner. He has rightly appreciated the evidence and has correctly drawn the conclusions. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Besides, there is absolutely no substantial question of law which is raised in the present appeal as is contemplated by Section 30 (1) of the Act. In these circumstances, there is absolutely no substance in the appeal. The same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.