THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.3161 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The appellant was employed with the 2nd respondent as a worker in the Printing Press. It was stated that on 03.10.1990, an item of machinery fell upon his hands and that the same resulted in an injury of almost arms being separated from the hand. Initially he was treated in the Osmania General Hospital and thereafter in the NIMS. The treatment is said to have resulted in keeping the arms in tact, but leading to disability. The appellant filed W.C.Case.No.15 of 1994 before the 1st respondent-Commissioner, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short ‘the Act’), claiming a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation. The claim was opposed by the 2nd respondent. It was pleaded that the appellant was not a regular employee and that he was a contract worker. It was also stated that the injury was simple and the disability certificate was obtained from a private Doctor, ten years after the date of injury. Certain other grounds were also urged. Through order, dated 09.07.2001, the 1st respondent awarded a sum of Rs.40,269/- as compensation. Not satisfied with that, the appellant filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Act. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. There is a serious dispute as to the very nature of appointment of the appellant with the 2nd respondent. Even after accepting the contention of the 2nd respondent, that the appellant was not directly employed with them, the 1st respondent took the view that the 2nd respondent is vicariously liable for the injuries caused to the appellant. As regards the quantum of compensation, the appellant pleaded that he was drawing wages of Rs.1500/- per month. The 1st respondent took note of the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act for the concerned post, which at the relevant point of time was Rs.745/- per month. Though serious doubt existed as to the genuinty of the certificate issued by the Doctor, 10 years after the accident, the 1st respondent took note of the same and awarded compensation of Rs.40,269/- by applying the relevant formula. Learned counsel for the appellant is not able to point out any serious defect in the order under appeal. Therefore, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 01.12.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.3161 of 2001 Date: 01.12.2011 JSU