EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT Vs. KUNDENA BHAGYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed against the order in W.C. No. 356 of 1996(F) on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hyderabad (Twin Cities). The 1st respondent herein made a claim for compensation alleging that her husband was a toddy tapper employed by the 2nd respondent and he received injuries due to snake bite on 04.07.1996 and he died. He was said to be aged 40 years and was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. She claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,38,728/-. It was also pleaded that as the 1st respondent appointed the 2nd respondent by collecting licence fee, the 1st respondent is also liable to pay the compensation. Agreeing with the contentions of the claimant, the Commissioner has granted a compensation of Rs. 1,21,783/-. Aggrieved by the fixation of the liability on the 1st respondent, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) When the matter came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.S. Narayan, he has referred the matter to the Division Bench as there was said to be conflict between two decisions of the Division Bench reported in Gangireddy Venkateswara Rao and another Vs. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Guntur and others, 1998 1 ALT 383and also New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Nizamabad and others Vs. A. Senapathi Reddy and others, 2002 3 ALT 24 .

(3.) The point for consideration is whether there is any conflict of opinion in the decisions referred toand if an appeal is not maintainable under Section 30(1) of the Act for failure to deposit the compensation amount as provided under third proviso and whether it is curable defect?