RANGA COTTON GINNING MILLS Vs. G RATNA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the Opposite party in W.C.No. 25 of 1989 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Guntur Region, Guntur who suffered an award under Sec. 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (in short the Act) wherein holding that the workman Mr. Sambasiva Rao died due to the injuries suffered by him during the course of employment under the appellant, the learned Commissioner awarded Rs. 26,432-64 ps by way of compensation to the respondents herein who are the legal heirs of the deceased Sambasiva Rao.

(2.) Mr. G. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appreciation of evidence in the case by the learned Commissioner is opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case and has a preference to ocular evidence as against the documentary evidence proving that the deceased was not an employee of the appellant at the time of the accident and his death. It is further contended by him that the inferences drawn by the learned Commissioner against the appellant were unjustified, the best evidence possible, both oral and documentary, was produced which the claimants could not meet with their oral evidence which is tarnished with contradictions and interestedness.

(3.) Mr. N.Subba Rao, the learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants while resisting the contentions as above has pointed out that the appreciation of evidence by the learned Commissioner is reasonable, supported by materials and not tainted with capriciousness or arbitrariness and therefore this Court in the appeal may not, in the ordinary circumstances, interfere or set aside the said award. It is also his contention that if the case does not fall under Sec. 3 of the Act, it must be brought at least under Sec. 12 of the Act making the appellant liable for the employee of the customer who died in the accident in the course of the employment of at least under the customer who stands in the position of a contractor. Mr. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant has squarely dismissed such an argument by saying that at no cost Sec. 12 of the Act can be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case as it is nobody's case that another person under whom the deceased might be working was engaged or utilised as a contractor by the appellant for any purpose at the relevant time. The learned Counsel for the appellant is emphatic that this appeal is confined to the only question whether there was relationship of master and servant between the appellant and the deceased Sambasiva Rao and the rest of the findings leading to the award are not challenged.