IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4583 OF 2003 Between: Forest Ranger Officer, Kaddam Mandal, Kaddam District, Adilabad & 3 others. ..... Appellants AND Mekala Narsavva & another ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4583 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved of the quantum of compensation awarded in W.C.No.5 of 1997, dated 09.04.2003, by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Adilabad District, the appellants/respondents filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The appellants herein, who are the Forest Range Officer, Kaddam Mandal, Adilabad District, the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Jannaram Mandal, Jannaram, the Conservator of Forest and the Chief Conservator of Forest of Adilabad District and the respondents herein, who are the wife and daughter of the deceased, are the claimants in the W.C.No.5 of 1997 before the learned Commissioner. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the W.C.No.5 of 1997 before the learned Commissioner. 4. The brief facts are as follows: The deceased was aged about 25 years and was a resident of Vakeelnagar Village of Kaddam Mandal in Adilabad District. He was engaged as a worker on daily wage basis by the Forest Range Officer, Gangapur, from 05.09.1995 onwards on the wages of Rs.60/- or Rs.70/- per day. He was supposed to do the work of loading and unloading lorry with teak wood logs along with other labourers. On 07.09.1995, while that work was going on, a log fell on the deceased, on account of which he received grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Nirmal and from there, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Head Quarters, Nizamabad. After treating him, the doctors of Government Hospital, Nizamabad, discharged him on 25.09.1995 with an advice to take better treatment at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. The deceased died on 01.11.1996 due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 18% per annum. 5. The learned Government Pleader filed a counter denying the case of the claimants. 6. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. P.W.1 is the wife and P.Ws.2 and 3 are the co-workers of the deceased and P.W.4 is the Sarpanch of Kaddam Mandal. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined, who is the Forest Range Officer of Kaddam Mandal and no documents were marked on behalf of them. 7. On the basis of the material on record, the learned Commissioner granted a compensation of Rs.2,16,910/- with 12% interest per annum. Aggrieved of the same, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred. 8. The respondents filed Appeal Against Order No.2147 of 2001 before this Court, which remitted back the matter directing the Court below to pass a speaking order and again this award was passed by granting Rs.2,16,910/- towards compensation and 18% interest thereon on amount of Rs.2,86,321/- and another sum of Rs.1,08,455/- towards 50% of the compensation as penalty. 8. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal? 9. The main contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the deceased was not employed by the Forest Department. He was a casual labourer engaged by some other agency. So, the only question for the point of consideration is whether the deceased was employed by the Forest Department or not? 10. The evidence of R.W.1, who is the only witness examined on behalf of the respondents is that in the month of November, 1995, one Forest Range Officer by name S. Rajeshwar was working at the time of accident. He came to know that the deceased never worked as a labourer in the Forest Department. His statement “he came to know” shows that his evidence is nothing better than hearsay. Thus, his chief examination itself is not emphatic. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he was not aware as to whether the deceased was working on behalf of the respondents to show that he was not engaged by the Forest Department. 11. There is no dispute that the deceased died while loading logs in the lorry in the Forest and the transaction was being carried out by the Forest Department. It appears that the contention of the Forest Department that the work was being got done by a contractor, but the material furnished therein does not reveal the name of any contractor. If really, the work was entrusted to a contractor, the respondents should have atleast mentioned the name of the contractor for that particular work. That is not forthcoming and even R.W.1 did not emphatically deny about the deceased being their worker. 12. In the above circumstances, in a case of this nature concerning to social welfare measures of providing compensation to the accident victims, there is no possibility of modifying the finding of the Court below particularly there is sufficient evidence. Thus, I hold that the deceased was working with the respondents and they are liable to pay compensation to the claimants and that the quantum of compensation of Rs.2,16,910/- cannot be said to be inappropriate. The interest at 18% per annum is very high and granting penalty is also not appropriate. Hence, I hold that the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.2,16,910/- towards compensation with 9% interest per annum from the date of the petition till payment. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 21st October, 2010. KL HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4583 OF 2003 21st October, 2010. KL