V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. - (1.)This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award, dated 11.05.2006, made in W.C. No.4 of 2005, by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Commissioner for Workmen Compensation), Tirunelveli.
(2.)The case of the claimant-S. Arumugam is that he worked as an Electrician-cum-Maintenance Worker under the respondents therein/Kalyana Mandapam and on 04.08.2004, he met with an accidental fall and sustained injuries. The claimant had submitted that on 04.08.2004, around 06.30 p.m., while he was trying to fit a tube light in the front side of the said Kalyana Mandapam, fell down from 6 feet height. Due to that, he sustained fracture in his left thigh bone (femur) and the claimant was taken nearby Ramanujam Poly Clinic, Ambasamudram and got discharged on 05.08.2004 and on the same day, he was admitted as an inpatient at Venkateswara Clinic, wherein, an operation was done on 07.08.2004 and a metal plate was fixed in his left femur. On 17.08.2004, he was discharged from the hospital and till the filing of the application before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, he was taking treatment and due to the injury, the claimant incurred loss of salary and he was also permanently disabled, due to the accidental fall which occurred during the course of employment and stated that he received a sum of Rs.3,000/ per month as a salary and the disability was assessed at 40% and loss of income and claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,526.40/- with interest at 12% per annum.
(3.)The respondents-employers therein filed a counter-affidavit and had denied the allegation in the petition and stated that the claimant was not at all working as a workman in the concerned Mandapam and they also denied the occurrence of accident and further treatment was also denied by the respondent. It is further stated that they denied the salary given and they are not liable to pay compensation. In paragraph No.7 of the counter-affidavit, the respondents-employer had stated that the claimant was not working under them, but he was working in a coffee depot under the second respondent in the claim petition, where the claimant worked till 31.10.2002 and after receiving bonus and salary, he left the concerned depot and they were not aware where he was working at the time of the accident. It is further stated that the first respondent therein used to engage temporary workers, as and when any function taken place in the Kalyana Mandapam. They denied their liability, since the claimant was not working with them and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.