KASHINATH BHIKAJI BADGUJAR Vs. ABDUL RAUF ABDUL HANIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and award made by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation/ Labour Court, Buldhana, in W.C.A. No. 4/2006, decided on 10/12/2008, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

(2.) Respondent nos. 1 to 3 had filed application under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Buldhana, in respect of injury caused to respondent no.1 in the course of employment of respondent no. 1 with the appellant. It was stated in the application that respondent no.1 was working with appellant for last 11 years. Appellant is building contractor and is having mixer machine for preparing concrete. At the relevant time, the contract was taken for construction of a complex near Agrasen Bhavan, Shegaon. He was engaged for running the mixer machine. On 23/9/2005, during the course of employment respondent no.1 suffered a head injury while working on the concrete mixer machine at 10 a.m. in the morning and he fell down from mixer machine and was unconscious. He was then brought in the hospital at Shegaon on the same day and was treated by Dr.Ramesh Bhutada and a Computerised Tomography Scan (for short C.T.Scan) was also taken on 24.9.2005. Finally, he suffered 70% disablement. He lodged report with police on 18.11.2005 about the incident. After having failed to obtain compensation from the appellant, he sent a notice through advocate on 29.11.2005, but was given a reply denying the claim. He, thus, claimed an amount of compensation of Rs. 1,72,007.75 with penalty.

(3.) Appellant filed written statement and denied the averments made in the application. He stated that respondent no.1 was engaged once or twice by him but not on mixer machine and on the date of alleged accident on 23.9.2005 neither he was engaged nor any work was going on nor any contact was taken. He denied all the averments relating to the accident. He stated that as a matter of fact respondent no.1 had suffered paralytic attack on that day and with a view to recover money from the appellant the proceedings were filed.