THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.335 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed W.C. Case No.2 of 2010 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ongole claiming compensation against the respondents. He pleads that he was engaged by respondent No.2, a Contractor to work in the house of respondent No.1 and that in the course of execution of work on 09.07.2006, he got electrocuted and suffered burn injuries all over the body and abdomen. Respondent No.1 opposed the case by stating that he never engaged respondent No.2 as Contractor, much less there is a privity of contract between himself and the appellant. Respondent No.2 stated that he engaged the appellant as an electrician to work in the house of respondent No.1 and that the accident has occurred in the course of employment. The Commissioner passed an order, dated 14.09.2010, holding that respondent No.2 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,73,645/- to the appellant as compensation. This appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act mainly on the ground that the Commissioner ought to have held respondent No.1 liable to pay the compensation. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. It can be said to the credit of the Officer concerned that he has undertaken discussion of the matter in a thorough and perfect manner. After recording the pleadings of the respective parties, he discussed the evidence of each and every witness. The appellant deposed as A.W.1. He stated that he was employed by respondent No.2 and he was required to work with respondent No.1. A.W.2, K.Anjaiah, has also spoken in the same terms. Respondent No.1 deposed as R.W.1. He denied the factum of entrusting any work to respondent No.2 much less the engagement of the appellant for his work. He categorically stated that the so-called incident in which the appellant suffered injuries had occurred elsewhere. Respondent No.2 deposed as R.W.2. He deposed that he employed the appellant as electrician along with another person for the work of respondent No.1. According to him, the incident occurred when the appellant was working in the house of respondent No.1. The consistent case that emerges from the evidence of the witnesses is that the appellant was engaged by respondent No.2. The appellant or for that matter respondent No.2 failed to prove that any work was entrusted by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2. The inescapable conclusion is that the incident occurred was under the employment of respondent No.2. There is no way that the Commissioner could have held respondent No.1 liable to pay the compensation. Further, it does not make any difference for the appellant whether the amount is to be recovered from respondent No.1 or respondent No.2. There are no merits in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:19.04.2011 kdl