AKULA SURYANARAYANA ALIAS SURIBABU Vs. PEDDIBOINA VENKATA MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful claimant in W.C. Case No. 7 of 1997, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, West Godavari at Eluru (for short "the Commissioner"), is the appellant in this C.M.A. He presented the claim before the Commissioner, alleging that he was employed as a helper in the saw-mill, owned by the respondents, and that on 01-03-1996, at about 8.30 a.m., his left hand wemt inside the machine, and was crushed. He stated that the first respondent admitted him in local private hospital and that his hand was amputated. He claimed compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) The respondents resisted the claim alleging that the appellant was not employed by them, and that they are not liable to pay any compensation. The appellant examined himself as A.W.1. The doctor, who treated him for the injury, was examined as A.W.2. Exs. A-1 to A-7 were marked on his behalf. The first respondent examined himself as R.W.1. The attendance register and pay register for the year 1996 were filed as Exs. R-1 and R-2. Through the order, dated 22-02-2002, the Commissioner held that the appellant was not employed by the respondents, and as such, they are not liable to pay compensation.

(3.) Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant placed voluminous evidence before the Commissioner to prove that he was employed with the respondents and sustained injuries during the course of his employment. He submits that whatever may be the suspicion about the evidence of A.W.1, the evidence of A.W.2, an independent witness, ought to have been accepted by the Commissioner. He submits that Exs. R-1 and R-2 are nothing but self- serving documents and were not certified by any Government agency.