Delhi High Court
On Time Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs Meena And Ors. on 14 November, 2007
Author: P Nandrajog
Bench: P Nandrajog
JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Harminder Singh had admittedly died while sleeping in a car belonging probably to the appellant or Sh. S.N. Gupta the director of the appellant. He died in the intervening night of 3.11.2006 and 4.11.2006. Harminder Singh had admittedly driving S.N. Gupta to Chandigarh. Whereas S.N. Gupta made arrangements to sleep comfortably in a hotel room, the driver was made to fend for himself. On a wintry night the driver was made to sleep in the car.
2. The dependents of the workman filed a claim under the Workman's Compensation Act stating that Harminder Singh died due to stress caused during employment and in particular the inhuman condition in which the driver was made to sleep in the car on a wintry evening.
3. A defense was predicated by the appellant to the effect that 4 months prior to his death Harminder Singh had ceased to be in employment of the appellant. That Harminder Singh repeatedly pestered S.N. Gupta to give him some employment. That at the insistence of Harminder Singh, S.N. Gupta reluctantly accepted the offer of Harminder Singh to drive S.N. Gupta to Chandigarh.
4. Appellant deputed one Himanshu to appear before the learned Commissioner, Workman's Compensation and defend the claim filed. Himanshu pleaded a defense somewhat different than what was pleaded in the written defense. The same has been reproduced in para 5 of the order impugned. It reads as under:
5. It is pertinent to mention that on 7th September, 2007, the respondent filed an authorized letter authorizing Shri Himanshu, Executive, to appear on their behalf before this Court. During the proceedings, Shri Himanshu, the authorized representative of the respondent, categorically stated that the deceased workman was in the employment of respondent management. He further stated that M/s. On Time Travels Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Nuwing Travels, both located at 1205, Rohit House, 3-Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi belong to Shri S.N. Gupta and that Shri Harminder Singh, the deceased workman was employed with M/s. On Time Travels Pvt. Ltd. The authorized representative of Respondent Management further admitted that deceased workman had infect accompanied Shri S.N. Gupta to Chandigarh on the fateful day. He further admitted that Shri Harminder Singh, the deceased driver was on duty with Shri S.N. Gupta, the Proprietor/Director of the firm company. The authorized representative of the Respondent management stated that he fact of death of Shri Harminder Singh when he was on duty and in employment of the Respondent is well known to him (A/R of the Respondent/Management) and other employees of M/s. On time Travels Pvt. Ltd.
5. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the finding returned by the Commissioner Workman's Compensation that the deceased was an employee of the appellant company.
6. Pertaining to the cause of death and whether the same was occasioned due to work's stress and whether the workman died during course of employment, suffice would it be to state that admitted case of the parties was that Harminder Singh died on the intervening night of 3.11.2006 and 4.11.2006 at Chandigarh. He was sleeping in the car in which he had driven Sh. S.N. Gupta, Director of the appellant. Thus, the conclusion that Harminder Singh died in course of employment arrived at by the Commissioner Workman's Compensation cannot be faulted.
7. On the issue of quantification I find that no error has been committed by the Commissioner Workman's Compensation.
8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
