NANDU Vs. SHEELA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts in brief are that Amar Singh alias Amrit Singh, husband of claimant-respondent No. 1 and the father of claimant-respondent Nos. 2 to 4, was engaged in the work of repairing of electric motor and its fittings and he used to earn Rs. 150 per day. He used to spend 2/3rd of his income on the claimants. Non- applicants-appellants engaged him in repairing work of the pump installed in 60 ft deep well situated in their residential premises. While performing it, he was injured and ultimately died during the course of employment. A sum of Rs. 4,00,000 was prayed for as compensation under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

(2.) Non-applicants-appellants in their reply stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of Amar Singh himself. He was taken out of the well by the appellant No. 3 and was taken to Nagpur for medical treatment. He was an ordinary labourer and not a skilled labourer. They also refuted his daily income at the rate of Rs. 150. It is stated in the reply that the appellant No. 3 alone engaged Amar Singh alias Amrit Singh for the said work and the charges were settled at Rs. 50 only. Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 had no concern with the engagement of Amar Singh for the said purpose and they were not his employers. It is contended in the reply that the application is not tenable and the appellants are not liable to pay any compensation.

(3.) The learned Commissioner for the Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Chhindwara after recording the evidence allowed the application and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,94,640 towards compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent.