The Management, Raja Plantation (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Anguthai and Another

Raju, J.—The above appeal has been filed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner for Labour, Coimbatore, dated 23.12.1982 made

in W.C. Case No. 51 of 1982 where under the authority below awarded a compensation of Rs. 16,800/- to the first respondent on account of the

death of her husband, late Maran.

The case of the first respondent before the authority below was that her husband Maran was working with the appellant as a cleaner-cum-

loader in the motor vehicle belonging to the appellant bearing registration No. MDN 5850, that on 21.8.1981 when the deceased was unloading

coal in the leased premises of the appellant the lorry suddenly moved back as a result of which the deceased Maran fell down from lorry and got

his spinal cord injured, that he was rushed to the C.M.C Hospital, Coimbatore, he died the next day and hence the application was made before

the authority below u/s 10 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 21,000/- on her behalf and on behalf of her minor

daughter on the plea that the deceased was earning Rs. 450/- per month.

The appellant opposed the claim, disowned the relationship of employer and employee and denied the occurrence of an accident resulting in the

death of Maran as claimed by the first respondent, his wife.

After trial and after consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the authority below came to the conclusion that the deceased was a

worker under the appellant, that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and determined the compensation at Rs. 16,800/-.

Hence the appeal.

Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently reiterated the submissions made before the authority below and

contended that the deceased husband of the first respondent was not a worker under the appellant and the authority below ought to have accepted

the oral and documentary evidence produced by the appellant and sustained the theory of the appellant and thereby reject the claim petition. After

going through the order and considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel or the appellant. I am not persuaded to accept the

submission of the learned Counsel. Nor do I think that there is justification for me to interfere with the order of the authority below.

The authority below hose to place reliance upon the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased and also the first information report in which the

deceased had given a statement that he had been a worker with the appellant and also about the manner in which the accident occurred. Learned

Counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased''s name does not find place in the registers maintained by the appellant in the normal course

of business and the driver of the vehicle who has been examined as R.W.1, also deposed that he never used the services of the deceased in

respect of loading or unloading on that day.

The authority below while discussing the evidence found that the registers produced do not disclose the correct state of affairs to arrive at such a

conclusion. The authority below refined upon the absence of the very name of R.W.1 who was admittedly the driver of the vehicle in question in

the registers produced. That apart, the authority below referred to the fact that even in the payment registers filed, no signatures seem to have been

obtained to vouch safe the payment of salary. In the circumstances while weighing the evidence on either side, the authority below thought fit to

come to the conclusion on the basis of some evidence which, in my view, is relevant for the purpose that the deceased was a worker under the

appellant and the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment as a result of which the authority below awarded a compensation of

Rs. 16,800/-. The conclusions of the authority below cannot be said to be vitiated on account of any perversity of approach or total lack of any

evidence. An appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act lies to this Court only on a substantial question of law and I do not consider that

within the requirements of the said Section there is any scope for interference in the present appeal. The court sitting in appeal u/s 30 of the

Workmen''s Compensation Act does not function as a regular court of appeal with liberty to reappreciate the evidence. I do not see any reason to

interfere with the order of the authority below. The appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.