Delhi High Court
North Delhi Power Ltd. vs Asha Devi & Ors. on 23 May, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 304/2010
% May 23, 2011
NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. K. Dutta, Adv.
VERSUS
ASHA DEVI & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rohit K. Modi and
Mr. N.P.Singh, Adv. for R-1 to R-3.
Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Adv. for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of the first appeal under Section 30 of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is to the impugned order dated
22.4.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation awarding
a sum of Rs.1,72,520/- to the widow and the children of the deceased
workman Sh. Naresh Kumar, who was working as an employee of the then
Delhi Vidhut Board.
2. The facts of the case are that Sh. Naresh Kumar was admittedly an
FAO 304/2010 Page 1 of 3
employee of Delhi Vidhut Board. This was not disputed by Delhi Vidhut
Board in the proceedings before the Commissioner, Workmen's
Compensation. The case as set out by the claimants/respondents no.1 to 3
was that Sh. Naresh Kumar, on 8.9.1998, while attending his duties along
with his co-workers, had an accident by falling down from an electric pole
and was admitted to Ugarsen Hospital at about 8.45 PM. Due to the
accident, he could not survive and he died on 10.9.1998.
3. In a claim, which was filed under the Employees Compensation Act,
1923, the basic aspects which are to be seen are with respect to the
employment of the deceased and also the fact as to whether the accident
arose in and out of the course of employment. So far as employment is
concerned, the same was not disputed. So far as the aspect that whether or
not an unfortunate accident took place, I may note that the appellant itself
on 9.9.2009, before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, admitted
in so many words with regard to the factum of the accident. I may note that
in the appeal filed in this court it is no where challenged, and nor was
challenged before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, that the
order dated 9.9.2009 admitting to the factum of the accident has been
wrongly recorded. Accordingly, the fact that the accident took place and the
workman died in the course of performing his duties is also an admitted fact.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to argue that the appellant
should have been held entitled to lead evidence and reliance is placed upon
FAO 304/2010 Page 2 of 3
Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali
(2007) 11 SCC 668. I really fail to understand the purpose of this
argument, inasmuch as, and as already stated above, the factum of the
accident was admitted in so many words by the appellant before the
Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, and as recorded in the order dated
9.9.2009 as stated above and that order is not challenged in appeal even
before this court.
5. Accordingly, I do not find any error whatsoever in the impugned
judgment in this regard to interfere in appeal. The Commissioner Workmen's
Compensation has applied the correct income, correct multiple and has
therefore correctly arrived at the compensation which was statutorily
awarded to the dependents of the deceased workman. The appeal is
therefore without merit and is thus dismissed leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
Since the main appeal itself has been dismissed, no orders are
required to be passed on the pending applications which are disposed of
accordingly. Trial court record be sent back.
May 23, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
