Rs.200/-, the company was also paying Rs.5,000/- per month to the deceased and also used to provide food and shelter at the work site. He had also spoken about the accident in which the deceased had died and about the labour Maistry Vara Prasad sustaining injuries in the same accident. He had further testified that the opposite party had paid Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the parents of the labour Maistry Vara Prasad. According to his version, the opposite party had not given any appointment orders, but used to pay the wages after obtaining signatures in wage register and that Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to the parents of the labour Maistry and the electrical supervisor, i.e., the deceased who had worked on behalf of the opposite party. In his cross-examination, he had admitted that he is not having any proof to show that he had worked in the establishment of the opposite party and that Vara Prasad is his brother and that the management gave Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses to his parents and Rs.1,00,000/- to the mother of the deceased. He had denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsehood at the instance of PW1. PW3, a masonry coolie had also supported the version of PW1. According to his version, the deceased used to take muster daily and entrust the work through the Maistry; and, the company used to pay wages after obtaining signatures in the register through the deceased and that after completion of the work in the evening hours, they used to return to their residences which were provided by the company and that the deceased used to purchase food items and other articles in the neighbouring village for arranging materials to the workers and for supply of articles related to the work and that on the said day, i.e., on 25.11.2008, Uday Kumar had met with an accident while travelling on a motor cycle along with Vara Prasad and that both of them had sustained injuries and that the deceased had succumbed to the injuries on the spot and that Vara Prasad had died at Warangal Hospital and that he had received summons from the Court to give evidence. In his cross-examination, he had stated that they were paid coolie or wage once in every week and that he does not have any evidence to show that he had worked under the opposite party. Per contra, RW1 had deposed in line with the pleaded defence of the opposite party. He is a partner of M/s. Sai Power lines Contractors, i.e., the opposite party. He had asserted in his evidence that the deceased worked on daily wages under a labour contractor who is working for different people and that the said labour contractor used to work for many persons besides the opposite party and that the field work will be completed by 5 PM in the evening and that the documents filed by the applicants reveal that the
