N. Paul And Co. vs Ram Kali And Ors.
1993 Latest Caselaw 210 Del

JUDGMENT

P.K. Bahri, J.

1. This appeal is directed against order November 6, 1975, of Mr. R.N. Mehrotra, Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, awarding Rs. 8,000/- as compensation on account of death of Keshav Ram.

2. The facts, in brief, as put up before the said authority under the said Act were that Keshav Ram was in employment of the appellant and while performing his duties with the appellant, he suffered injuries in an accident on February 17, 1969 and succumbed to his said injuries on February 22, 1969. He had left behind Ram Kali, his widow, two sons, namely Suraj Prakash and Ravinder and one daughter, named Lali. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- was claimed as compensation. The deceased was working as a 'jamadar' and was employed in the construction work regarding maintenance of roads and electrical fittings at Palam Airport. On the day of accident, it is alleged that he was supervising the labour at work when he was struck by a nozzle of the fire bridge at the Palam Airport which fire bridge has been requisitioned for the purpose of digging out so that a road could be constructed as some underground cable was to be laid. He was earning Rs. 300/- as mensem as wages at the time he died.

The appellant opposed this petition pleading that, in fact, the deceased was not an employee of the appellant and the appellant was a registered contractor and had been allotted the contract by the C.P.W.D. for laying cables at the Palam Airport and there were existing some G.I. pipes already laid by C.P.W.D. and those cables had to be crossed through the said pipes and the appellant had approached the authorities concerned for arranging to remove the earth and mud blocked in those pipes so that the cables could be laid after clearance of the pipes and it was alleged that it was the C.P.W.D. which had requisitioned the services of the fire bridge to flush the pipes with water pressure to clear mud and earth and the said fire bridge had brought along with it certain firemen to do the operation and the appellant had nothing to do with the said operation of clearing the pipes which was the duty of the C.P.W D. So, it was pleaded that there arose no liability of the appellant for the accident which was caused to Keshav Ram being struck by the nozzle of fire bridge which resulted in his death. The following issues were framed:

(1) Was Keshav Ram, deceased, in the employment of the appellant?

(2) Whether Keshav Ram was killed in the course of employment with the appellant?

(3) To what amount, if any, is the petitioner entitled by way of compensation on the death of Keshav Ram?

(4) Is the petitioner the widow the deceased Keshav Ram?

(5) Relief.

After recording evidence the authority below held that Ram Kali is the widow of deceased Keshav Ram and on issue Nos. 1 and 2, the authority, after appraising the evidence, gave the findings that deceased Kashav Ram was en employment of the appellant and was performing the duties assigned to him by the appellant when the accident occurred and the deceased suffered the injuries during the course of his duties and thus, the appellant was liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. He decided these issues in favor of the claimants. Issues Nos. 3 and 5 were decided together and it was held that the amount of Rs. 8,000/- was a fair compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.

3. In appeal, the findings of the compensation authority with regard to issue Nos. 1 and 2 have been challenged pleading that there was no sufficient evidence to hold that the deceased was in the employment of the appellant and that he had suffered the injuries while performing the duties assigned to him by the appellant. Apart from examining the claimant herself, Hoshiar Singh and Jhumman were also examined to prove that the deceased was working with the appellant. They also deposed regarding the accident taking place which resulted in the death of Keshav Ram. The appellant had examined a few witnesses including. Jagmohan Singh, partner of the appellant. He deposed that the deceased was not an employee of the appellant. He admitted that the work of laying the cables was at a place which was not accessible to all and sundry and only the contractor and his employees and the officials of the Airport could come. He admitted that the books of account were being maintained regularly but he had not brought the books of account to show that the deceased was not being paid any salary by the appellant. The appellant had placed reliance on Exh. RW 5-1, the muster roll, which did not include the name of the deceased. The competent authority had drawn an adverse inference against the appellant that if the books of account had been produced they would have shown that the deceased was employed with the appellant at the relevant time and, as far as the muster roll is concerned, it is not necessary that the name of the deceased should have figured in the said muster roll because the case of the claimant was that Keshav Ram was working as jamadar (supervisor) with the appellant. Jamadar need not be a muster roll employee. A plea was also taken before the, competent authority that in case Keshav Ram was employee of the appellant and had died during the course of his employment in the work which was being done for the Government, the Government would not have released the payment to the appellant till the claim of the heirs of the deceased had been settled. I do not think that mere fact that the appellant had been able to get the payment from the Government regarding his dues would lead to an inference that Keshav Ram deceased was not working with the appellant and was not performing the duties for the appellant at the spot when he met with the accident.

4. At any rate, it was a question of fact of be determined by the competent authority on the basis of the evidence and decide whether the deceased was in employment of the appellant and had died on account of performing his duties while in service with the appellant and in the present case, the competent authority, after perusal of the evidence, had given findings ill favor of the claimant, I do not think that this Court should interfere with such findings of fact which are not shown to be perverse in any manner. It is not understood why the appellant, which is a partnership firm and was admittedly maintaining account books, had not cared to produce the books of account to show that in fact, the deceased was not an employee of the appellant.

5. No other point was raised before me.

6. So, I affirm the findings of the competent authority on all the points and dismiss the appeal leaving the parties to bear their own costs.