M VEERANJANEYULU Vs. S SEETHARAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are invoked against the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Eluru in W.C. No. 24 of 1989 dated 12-4-1990. C.M.A. No. 331/91 is filed by Opposite Party No. 3 whereas C.M.A. No. 353/91 is filed by Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2. Respondents 1 to 4 in C.M.A. No. 331/91 who are the legal representatives of the deceased are the claimants before the Commissioner. The claimants sought compensation from the Opposite parties under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (in short,'the Act) alleging that one S. Katamraju was working as a helper under Opposite Party No. 2 on daily wages of Rs.15/- and subsequently on monthly wages of Rs. 750/-, he was working under Opposite Party No. 3, a contractor in connection with the installation of transformers and laying of connecting lines since about one month prior to 12-1-1989 and while he was working as such, he fell down due to electrocution and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, they alleged that the deceased died in the course of the employment under the Opposite parties and therefore claimed compensation of Rs. 28,522/-. The Opposite parties in general denied all the material allegations and in particular denied their liability to pay the compensation. The learned Commissioner held an enquiry into the claim wherein two persons were examined on behalf of the claimants as per A.Ws.l and 2 and four persons were examined on behalf of the opposite parties as per R.Ws.l to 4 and Exs.P-1 and R-l are got marked by way of documentary evidence. After hearing both the sides, the learned Commissioner awarded Rs. 67,952/- by way of compensation fixing joint and several liability on the Opposite parties with a direction to pay the amount within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order and further directed that Opposite parties 1 and 2 are entitled for indemnification by Opposite Party No. 3 as per Section 12(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation as such awarded by the learned Commissioner, Opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed C.M.A. No. 353/91 whereas aggrieved by the direction to indemnify opposite parties 1 and 2, the Opposite Party No. 3 has filed C.M.A. No. 331/91.

(2.) From the findings of fact which need not be reconsidered, it is apparent that the deceased S. Katamraju was working as an employee under Opposite Party No. 2 at the relevant time and he was engaged in the work to be executed by Opposite Party No. 3 as a contractor and in the course of such employment, he was electrocuted, fell down, suffered the injuries and died as a consequence thereof. He was aged 19 years and his wages were Rs. 750/- per month. Therefore with the aid of Schedule IV of the Act, the learned Commissioner fixed the compensation as above. In the operative portion of the award directing payment of compensation by Opposite parties 1 and 2 to the claimants, the learned Commissioner added the following direction:

(3.) Although C.M.A. No. 353/91 could have been taken up for consideration since it involves the quantum of compensation, since there is no representation for the appellants although waited till 2-55 PM, it can be taken that the appeal is not pursued on behalf of the appellants and it deserves to be dismissed for default.