Delhi High Court
Shri Roop Chand vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. And Anr. on 8 May, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 5632/1997
% May 08, 2013
SHRI ROOP CHAND ......Petitioner
Through: None.
VERSUS
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. AND ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner who was the employee of
erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board and whose successor-in-interest is now respondent
No.1/BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Petitioner was working as a Senior Lineman in
the Delhi Vidyut Board. While attending to no current complaint in July, 1995,
petitioner suffered an injury to his back and spinal chord and was disabled to the
extent of 75%.
2. In the writ petition, the petitioner prays for:-
(i) Appointment of petitioner's son on compassionate ground.
WPC No. 5632/1997 Page 1 of 3
(ii) Payment of disability pension.
(iii) Payment of compensation of Rs.10 lacs.
(iv) Payment of Rs.1.20 lacs towards New Group Insurance Scheme and
Janta Accident Insurance Policy.
3. Respondent No.1 has filed its counter affidavit wherein in para 2 it is
stated as under:-
"2. During his service in the erstwhile DVB prior to his voluntary
retirement on medical ground w.e.f. 01.03.1999 he was paid workmen
compensation amounting to Rs.58,676.25 p as per his disability through
workmen compensation commissioner vide cheque No.03333381 dated
31.07.1997. Further after his retirement on medical ground he was also
paid invalid pension and amount of Group Insurance Scheme as per
applicable rules. His son Sh. Gyan Chand was also offered appointment on
daily wages by the then Management of DVB vide letter No.E/AO (P-
VI)/98-99/25 dated 15th April, 1999. A copy of the said letter is annexed
hereto as Annexure R-1."
4. In my opinion, the decision of the Workmen Compensation
Commissioner would operate as res judicata for further claims against the
employer on account of injury suffered during the course of employment. So far as
the issue of disability is concerned, respondent No.1 states that the petitioner was
paid invalid pension as also amount of Group Insurance Scheme applicable as per
rules. Petitioner's son was also given employment on daily wages vide letter dated
15.4.1999 of DVB.
WPC No. 5632/1997 Page 2 of 3
5. In view of the above, the reliefs which are claimed by the petitioner
stand already granted. In case, the petitioner seeks to sue the erstwhile employer
and whose successor-in-interest is now the respondent No.1, under law of torts
then a suit will have to be filed inasmuch as there would be disputed questions of
facts which require trial as also evidence to be led with respect to the damages to
be awarded.
6. In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of in view of averments
made in the preliminary submissions para 2 of the counter affidavit of respondent
No.1 and giving the petitioner liberty to file civil suit in a Court of law with respect
to damages which the petitioner claims he has suffered. This Court makes no
observation one way or the other on such claims of the petitioner, and which will
be examined by the civil Court in accordance with law.
MAY 08, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
