KRISHNA RICE AND FLOUR MILLS Vs. CHALLAPALLI CHITTEMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" by the Manager, Shree Krishna Rice and Flour Mills, Samalkot, hereinafter referred to as "the appellant" questioning the judgment and order of the Additional Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dated 12 June 1958 in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 85 of 1956 on the file of the said Additional Commissioner, questioning the validity of the award of compensation made to favour of the respondent in this appeal and the applicant before the Additional Commissioner.

(2.) THE facts out of which this appeal has arisen may be briefly stated: The respondent is the widow of one Challapalli Gangaraju, hereinafter referred to as "the deceased," and she applied to the Additional Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, for awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,500 consequent on the death of her husband, the deceased, on 7 July 1956 due to electric shock while he was cleaning the bore-well pipe in the factory premises of the appellant. The deceased was working on the day of the accident, viz. , 7 July 1956, and at the time of the accident, on the premises of the appellant's factory which was a rice and flour mill. His work consisted in carrying paddy bags, Weighing them at the weighing balance and Stacking the rice bags. The deceased was one of a group of workers called muttah of which Kuntelu Venkataraju, examined as P. W. 4, was the maistri. During the course of his work on the premises of the appellant's mill, the supply of water to the labourers for drinking and washing purposes which was ensured from a bore-well, had apparently ceased on account of the choking of the bore-well pipe. The engine-driver of the factory took the deceased and one Achantal Chandra Rao, examined as P. W. 3, and deputed them to remove the bore-well tube for the purpose of cleaning and fixing so that the supply of water may be resumed. Accordingly, the two persons including the deceased got into the well and were lifting the tube for the purpose of dismantling. In doing so, the top portion of the tube came into contact with overhead electric wires, as a result of which the deceased was electrocuted and died. Hence the claim by the widow of the deceased for compensation. The learned Additional Commissioner, after considering the entire evidence in the case adduced on either side, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a workman employed on the premises at the time of the accident. He further held that the accident occurred in the course of and out of the employment of the deceased by the appellant. He fixed the average monthly wages of the decessed on the basis of the figures collected from the account book produced by the appellant (Ex. A. 5) at Rs. 35-12-0 per month and accordingly directed the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,200 calculated at the rates given in Sch. IV of the Act.

(3.) TWO main points have been urged by Sri K. B. Krishnamurthi, the learned Counsel for the appellant. The first one is that the deceased was at best a casual labourer not employed by the appellant but employed by the maistri (P. W. 4) and hence he did not satisfy the definition of a "workman" as set out in Section 2, Sub-section (n), of the Act. The second point contended for by Sri K. B. Krishnamurthi is that the accident did not arise in the course of and out of the employment of the deceased by the appellant, even if it is assumed that the deceased was a workman in the employment of the appellant at the time of the accident.