HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM OHAMMED C.M.A.NO. 96 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, is directed against the Order passed by the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation, Vijayawada, Krishna District (for short ‘the Commissioner’) in WC Case No. 88 of 2001 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the death of Triparani Appala Raju which was occurred when the deceased polishing the marble stones in the 5th floor of Nalanda Estate Private Limited first respondent herein. Respondents 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 2. The Commissioner for workmen’s Compensation held that the second respondent is only a supplier of marble stone, who engaged the third respondent for polishing work of the marbles supplied by the first respondent-Nalanda Estate Private Limited and therefore, dismissed the WC filed by the applicants. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that the deceased workman is a workman within the meaning of provisions of Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the payment of Rs. 100/- per day paid to the deceased has not been disputed by any of the respondents herein and there has been collusion between the respondents herein. He also submits that the finding of the Commissioner that the first respondent is not the Principal Employer and there was no ‘master and servant’ relationship between the deceased and the first respondent, is contrary law. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and it rightly dismissed the case. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. As seen from the record, the accident took place while the deceased one Triparani Appala Raju polishing the marble stones in the 5th floor of Nalanda Estate Private Limited, first respondent herein. The evidence goes to show that the second respondent herein is only a supplier of marble stones and in turn he himself engaged the third respondent for polishing work of the marble stones. Therefore, here in this particular case, there is no employee and employer relationship between the deceased and the Nalanda Estate Private Limited-first respondent herein, and the deceased is a casual /daily paid worker who falls under the definition of Section 2(n) of Workmen’s Compensation Act. Therefore, the Commissioner rightly dismissed the case as not maintainable. I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 17.2.2011 KA