Kamalwati vs Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma
2023 Latest Caselaw 1116 Chatt

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1116 Chatt
Judgement Date : 22 February, 2023

Chattisgarh High Court

Kamalwati vs Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma on 22 February, 2023

                                      1

                                                                   NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             MAC No. 1114 of 2015
                     Judgment reserved on : 17/11/2022
                   Judgment pronounced on : 22/02/2023
   1. Kamalwati, Wd/o Late Siboram, Aged About 21 Years,

   2. Anita, D/o Late Siboram, Aged About 4 Years,

   3. Siban, S/o Late Siboram, Aged About 2 Years,

   4. Sarita, S/o Late Siboram, Aged About 7 Years,

      Appellants No. 2 to 4 through Natural guardian namely
      Kamalwati    Wd/o Late Siboram,

   5. Aayti, Wd/o Late Sonadhar, Aged About 50 Years

      All are R/o Village- Sargipal, Junapara, Post- Jagdalpur, Tahsil -
      Jagdalpur, Civil & Revenue District- Bastar Chhattisgarh.

                                                           ---- Appellants

                                 Versus

   1. Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Patel
      Mohalla, Torva, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

   2. Executive Engineer (CREDA), Chhattisgarh State Renewable
      Energy Development Agency, Regional Office Jaipur Road,
      Kumharpara, Kundalrao Infront of Pole Factory, Jagdalpur, District-
      Bastar Chhattisgarh.

   3. Director, Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development
      Agency, (CREDA) State Electricity Controller Commission, Power
      Department, Second Floor, Irrigation Colony, Shanti Nagar, Raipur,
      District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

                                                        ---- Respondents

For Appellants : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Manisha Yadav, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Devershi Thakur with Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Judgment

1. The Miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the

claimants/appellants under Section 30 of the Employees

Compensation Act, questioning the legality and propriety of the

award dated 24.07.2015 passed by the Commissioner,

Employee Compensation Act, Labor Court, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in

Case No. 35/2013/WC, whereby the learned Commissioner

while allowing the claim in part has awarded the total amount of

compensation to the tune of Rs.6,99,660/- in favour of the

appellants/claimants with the condition that if the said amount is

not deposited within 45 days by respondent No.1 the same shall

carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till

the date of deposit.

2. As per claim petition, Shiboram (deceased), husband of the

appellant No.1- Kamalwati, was working with other laborers to

install solar lights at various places under the employment of a

contractor i.e. respondent No.1 and the said contract was given

by respondent No.3 to the contractor for installation of solar

lights in the entire division. On 28.08.2012, work was going on by

installing CREDA's solar lights in Barsoor police station

premises. The iron pole was being fixed to install solar lights in

the police station. In Barsoor police station, Shiboram and

Tularam were fixing the pillars to install solar lights around the

police station building. High tension electric wire was passing

from above. While fixing the pole, the iron pole came in contact

with the high tension wire, in which two other laborers were

thrown along with Shiboram, who were immediately taken to the

hospital where Shiboram was declared brought dead.

3. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 22 of

the Employees Compensation Act, the learned Commissioner

considering the pleadings of the respective parties and the

evidence adduced in support thereof passed the impugned

judgment as mentioned above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the

learned Commissioner erred in fixing the liability on the

defendant No.1/respondent No.1, because as per defendant

No.1/respondent No.1, the payment of wages was done by

principal employee therefore, the liability to pay the

compensation was of the principal employer. It is further

submitted that the learned Commissioner did not consider the

evidence available on record and did not award adequate

compensation to the claimants. At the time of accident, the age

of the deceased was 26 years and he used to earn Rs.7500/- per

month. Therefore, the income of the deceased has not been

properly assessed by the learned Commissioner. Thus,

impugned judgment deserves to be modified.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the argument of

appellant and submits that the liability was of the principle

employer and respondent No.1 should be exonerated from

payment of compensation.

6. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 supported the

impugned judgment.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available

on record.

8. It is an admitted fact before the Commissioner that deceased was under the employment and control of respondent No.1 and respondent No.1- Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma (N.A. Witness No.1) himself also admitted this fact in his statement that, ";g dguk lgh gS fd mDr dk;Z eq>s N-x-jk-v-m-fo- dzM s k foHkkx ds }kjk feyk FkkA ;g Hkh lgh gS fd mDr dk;Z dk lapkyu esjs }kjk etnwj yxkdj djok;k tkrk FkkA ;g Hkh lgh gS fd mDr dk;Z djus ds fy;s etnwj esjs v/khuLFk jgrs gq;s esjs funZs'kkuqlkj dk;Z djrs FksA mu etnwjksa dk Hkqxrku esjs }kjk fd;k tkrk FkkA"

9. Respondent No.1 admitted this fact that the deceased was

employed under him. Therefore, learned Commissioner rightly

fastened the liability upon respondent No.1/N.A. No.1 and this

finding is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence.

10.Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of

Rs.6,99,960/- awarded by the Commissioner is just and proper in

the given facts and circumstances of the case.

11.Learned commissioner calculated the income of the deceased

as Rs.250/- per day i.e Rs. 6,500/- for 26 days. This calculation

is not proper so monthly income of the deceased is assessed as

Rs. 7,500/- (Rs.250x30 days). After ½ deduction of this amount