Thati Ranga Rao vs L. Varalaxmi and Another

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—The appellant challenges the order, dated 19-3-2001, passed by the Assistant Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, (for short the Commissioner), Warangal, in W.C. No. 1 of 1993.

The first respondent raised a claim before the Commissioner alleging that her husband L. Bhaskar Rao was employed with the appellant in a rice mill and that in an accident which took place on 9-1-1993 in the mill, he died on the spot. It was alleged that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 1,375/- per month and accordingly prayed for award of compensation under the provisions of the Act.

The appellant denied his liability. He pleaded that the 2nd respondent is the owner of the rice mill and that he took the same on lease with effect from 15-3-1993. According to him, when the accident has taken place, he was not the lessee and therefore, the question of his being held responsible does not arise. Through the order under appeal, the Commissioner held that the appellant is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 78,824/-. Half of the said amount, being Rs. 39,412/- was levied as penalty and interest at the rate of 6% was awarded.

Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the 2nd respondent was admittedly owner of the rice mill and the evidence on record discloses that the mill was leased to the appellant with effect from 15-3-1993. He contends that the Commissioner fixed the liability against the appellant, instead of the 2nd respondent.

Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, submits that there are several admissions on the part of the appellant to indicate that he took the mill on lease with effect from 1-11-1992 and that the deceased was employed under him. He submits that the appeal itself is not maintainable since the appellant did not deposit the entire amount awarded by the Commissioner, as a condition precedent.

Section 30 of the Act mandates that the entire amount awarded by the authority under the Act must be deposited as a condition precedent for filing the appeal. In the instant case, the appellant deposited only a sum of Rs. 78,824/-. He did not deposit the amount of penalty or the accrued interest. However, it is too late at this stage to reject the appeal on the ground that the part of the amount was not deposited.

It is not in dispute that Sri L. Bhaskar Rao, an employee, of the mill, died in an accident on 9-1-1993. In fact, the appellant himself filed a complaint in this regard, before the police station. The complaint is marked as Ex.P-2. The only dispute was as to whether the mill was under the management of its owner, the 2nd respondent, or under the appellant herein, as lessee as on the date of the accident. Though the appellant made an endeavour to plead and prove that he took the mill on lease with effect from 15-3-1993, there is substantial evidence to disclose that he was a lessee as on the date of the accident. Ex.R-2 is a registered lease deed, according to which, the appellant is a lessee for a period of one year from 15-3-1993. The lease deed was, however, written on stamp paper purchased on 5-1-1993. Added to this, the appellant filed C.D. No. 224 of 1993 in the District Consumer Forum, Khammam, against the A.P. State Electricity Board. In that, he stated that he is the lessee of the mill with effect from 1-11-1992. The appellant has also filed a caveat in the vacation Court in the light of the death of the deceased on 9-1-1993. Here again, he admitted that he is a lessee at the relevant point of time. The Commissioner has taken these aspects into consideration and held that the appellant alone is liable to pay compensation.

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay the penalty.

Hence, the C.M.A. is partly allowed setting aside the order, dated 19-3-2001, passed by the Commissioner in W.C. No. 1 of 1993, only insofar as it relates to levy of penalty. The order is upheld in all other respects. There shall be no order as to costs.