The Project ... vs Sree Rama Sundaramma And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1887 AP

        HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

        Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.858 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out an

order dated 21.04.2005 passed in W.C.No.128 of 2004 by the

Commissioner for Wokmen's Compensation and the Deputy

Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, awarding compensation of

Rs.4,40,875/- and directing the opposite parties I to IV to

deposit the said amount along with interest at 12% p.a. from

the date of accident till realization by way of demand draft in

favour of the Commissioner for Wokrmen's Compensation and

the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool drawn on State

Bank of India, Kurnool, within thirty days from the date of

receipt of the order, failing which, they have to pay penalty

under Section 4(A) (3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act,

1923.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants being

mother and brother of the deceased workman Sree Rama

Chinna Obulesu, have filed a claim application seeking

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of one

Sree Rama Chinna Obulesu, who was a painter working

under the employment of Opposite Party-I, who was a

contractor for white-washing activity to the Opposite Party-IV

for the building of Assistant Social Welfare Office in Pragathi

Bhavan Complex of Opposite Party-I. The Opposite Party-II is

the head of Pragathi Bhavan and the Opposite Party-III was 2 VS, J

C.M.A.No.858 of 2009

supervising the activities of Pragathi Bhavan. On 22.06.2004,

the Opposite Party-I instructed the deceased painter to paint

windows and while the deceased started work at sun side of

the building and was painting the window, the deceased

unexpectedly fell down from the building and sustained

injuries and he skull was fractured. Immediately he was

shifted to Government Hospital where he was declared dead

during the course of treatment. The Civil Assistant Surgeon,

who conducted post-mortem, opined that the deceased died

due to Neurogenic shock. A case in Crime No.119 of 2004 was

registered by I Town Police Station, Kadapa. The deceased

was aged 18 years at the time of death and was warning

Rs.200/- per day as a skilled painter. Hence, the applicants

claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at

12% p.a., making all the Opposite Parties liable jointly and

severally to pay compensation to the applicants, as the

deceased died while he was painting the windows in the

course of his employment.

3. While the Opposite Party-I remained ex parte, the

Opposite Parties II and III adopted the counter of Opposite

Party-IV, wherein the Opposite Party-IV denied the averments

in the petition and contended that the Opposite Party-I has

entrusted the work of white washing to the building of

Assistant Social Welfare Office and hence, the Opposite Party-

IV was not aware of the fact of engaging the services of the 3 VS, J

C.M.A.No.858 of 2009

deceased for painting the windows and thereby the Opposite

Party-IV is no way concerned with the deceased and sought

for dismissal of the claim application.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Commissioner

framed the following issues.

1) Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting into death?

2) What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident?

3) What were the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accidental death?

4) What is the quantum of compensation payable to the applicants?

5) Who are liable to pay compensation to the applicants?

5. The mother of the deceased was examined as AW.1 and

AWs.2 and 3 were examined on her behalf and got marked

Exs.A.1 to A.3. On behalf of the opposite parties, RW.1 was

examined and no documents were marked.

6. After analysing the evidence on record, the

Commissioner came to the conclusion that the deceased was

engaged by Opposite Party-I for white washing activity to the

building of Assistant Social Welfare Office in Pragathi Bhavan,

Cuddapah under the contract employment of the Opposite

Party-I and the deceased had executed the said painting

work. The Commissioner also held that the deceased while 4 VS, J

C.M.A.No.858 of 2009

was painting the windows fell down from terrace and

sustained injuries and his skull was fractured and he died

while undergoing treatment; and the accidental death arose

out of and in the course of his employment under the

Opposite Party-I under the supervision of Opposite Party-III

and under the control of Opposite Party-II. Taking into

consideration the age mentioned in post-mortem certificate

and the inquest report, which are Exs.A.2 and A.3, the

Commissioner determined the age of the deceased as 18 years

at the time of death. Since the amount of wage at Rs.4,200/-

as claimed by the applicants is disputed by the opposite

parties, considering the minimum wages fixed in construction

or maintenance of Roads and Buildings operations to the

painter (Skilled Category) as per G.O.Ms.No.69, dated

29.03.2001, the Commissioner computed the minimum wage

of the deceased at Rs.3,895/- per month and by applying the

factor, the Commissioner awarded compensation of

Rs.4,40,875/- (226.38 X 50/100 X 3895 = 4,40,875/-), with

interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realisation.

Assailing the said award, the present appeal has been filed.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that

there is no privity of contract between the deceased and the

Opposite Party-IV and there is no order of appointment to 5 VS, J

C.M.A.No.858 of 2009

show that the deceased was working under the control of

Opposite Party-IV. He submits that the Commissioner erred

in taking into consideration the contributory negligence on

the part of the deceased as he did not take any precautions

while working along with co-workers and the Commissioner

ought to have fixed the contributory negligence on the part of

the deceased. He further submits that in fact the Opposite

Party-III is solely responsible for all the costs and

compensation as he is the person, who engaged the deceased

for painting work.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondents, supports the award under challenge and

contended that the same needs no interference.

10. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel

for the parties and on perusal of the material on record,

including the impugned award, it appears that after a

thorough analysis of the evidence both oral and documentary,

the Commissioner came to a conclusion that on 22.06.2004,

the deceased was engaged by Opposite Party-I for white

washing activity to the building of Assistant Social Welfare

Office in Pragathi Bhavan, Cuddapah under the contract

employment of the Opposite Party-I and the deceased had

executed the said painting work; that the deceased while was

painting the windows fell down from terrace and sustained

injuries and his skull was fractured and he died while 6 VS, J

C.M.A.No.858 of 2009

undergoing treatment and such accidental death arose out of

and in the course of his employment under the Opposite

Party-I under the supervision of Opposite Party-III and under

the control of Opposite Party-II. In view of the ratio laid down

in Bala Mallamma v. Registrar, Osmania University,

Hyderabad and another (2001 (2) ALD 228 (D) and in

Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India v. Asha

Chouhan (2004 ACJ 1474), the Commissioner was right in

arriving at such conclusions in view of the facts and

circumstances of the case. Therefore, the findings given by

the Commissioner are just, reasonable and well founded and

the same do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity

warranting interference of this court, and hence, the Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

dismissed, confirming the award dated 21.04.2005 passed in

W.C.No.128 of 2004. As the entire compensation amount has

already been deposited before the Commissioner, the

claimants/respondents are entitled to withdraw the same

with interest accrued thereon.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________ V. SUJATHA, J

Date: 20.04.2022 Ksn