KONDISETTI ANJAIAH Vs. T LAKSHMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Addl. Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Andhra, D/- 30-5-1958. awarding compensation to the respondent in a sum of Rs. 1260.00 for the loss of his lett fore-arm below the joint. The circumstances in which the claim for compensation arose are briefly as follows: The appellant was the owner of the Saw Mill at Vijayavada, in which the respondent, Lakshmayya, was employed as a worker. On 1-7-1955 as usual, the respondent was working at the Saw Mill. His duties, according to the appellant, were those of a helper. It is pointed out that usually four persons are employed to work at the Saw Mill in question --one is the cutter, whose duty it is to teed the saw mill and push the logs to be cut by pressing the wine against the saw in motion. There are two workers, who stand on either-side ot the saw to ensure that the cut logs are collected and returned to the cutter to enable him to do a second or further cutting of the logs in question. The helper i.e., the respondent is supposed to help the cutter as well as the workers. Primarily, his duty is to stand on the opposite side of the saw and receive the cut pieces and return them to the workers for the purpose of being taken back to the cutting end of the saw for enabling the cutter to start re-cutting of those logs whenever necessary. It is the case of the appellant that the centre cut ot the log was made on the day previous to the day of the accident, that is, on 1-7-1955 and that on that day a second cut was made in the log. At or about the time of the accident, every one in the mill appears to have left, except the cutter and the respondent. The worker had left his place of duty on the side of the saw, in order to place cut log, on a table towards the back of the saw. Apparently during the period he was temporarily absent from his place, the respondent, seeing that the log was moving away from the guide channel in which the log had to remain so that the cutting by the saw may be correctly effected, came on to the side of the saw, and as there was no worker there, he tried to push the log, which was getting out of the guide, into position, with his left hand. In doing so, Ms left hand was caught in the saw and was cut away at a point slightly below the left elbow; with the result that the hand had to be amputated.

(2.) The evidence in the case disclosed that at the time when the respondent was pushing the log; which was getting out of the guide, into position, the cutter alsb happened to exert pressure on the log and pushed it forward, which resulted in the accident, as seen from page 8 of the printed record in the case. The cutter Nookaraju pushed the log in the opposite direction very quickly with the result that the respondents hand was under the saw and was cut. According to the evidence in the case, the accident was due to the quick push of the log by the cutter Nookaraju, who was apparently not ex perienced.

(3.) In any case, the following facts are beyond dispute according to the evidence: 1. That the accident occurred on account of the hand of the respondent coming into contact with the saw, which was in motion; 2. that this occurred when the respondent was attempting to ensure that the log was cut along the proper line and did not go out of the guide, which would not be possible if the log got out of the guide, and he was only trying to bring the log into proper position; 3. that at this very time, the cutter, who was not quite experienced, quickly also pushed the log and it was this that has resulted in the hand of the respondent getting caught under the saw.