Delhi Transport Corporation vs Krishna Devi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 738 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                FAO No. 82/2013
%                                                    7th February, 2014
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION                                ..... Appellant
                          Through:       Mrs. Saroj Bidawat and Ms. Ritu
                                         Yadav, Advs.

                          versus

KRISHNA DEVI & ORS                                        ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. K.S. Goswami, Adv. for R-1 to 3.

Ms. Nanita Sharma, Adv. for R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employee's

Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment of the Employees

Commissioner dated 02.11.2012 which has allowed the claim petition filed

by the claimant/respondent herein and who were the applicants before the

Commissioner. The facts filed by the respondents before the Commissioner

was that the deceased Sh. Gopal Mehto who was working as a driver with

the appellant/DTC, after completing his duty to ply the bus from Delhi to

Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh was sleeping on the roof of the bus from where

he fell down as he was fast asleep and undergone grievous head injury

resulting in this compensation claim petition. The Employees

Commissioner has allowed the claim petition on the ground that the death of

the deceased took place while on duty in the course of employment. In my

opinion, the judgement of the Commissioner is wholly illegal and perverse.

Admittedly, the duty of the deceased, Sh. Gopal Mehto had come to an end

long back before he had gone to the roof of the bus to sleep. Sleeping on the

top of the bus is not an act done during the course of the employment and

during the course of the duty. In fact, I am sure that there are barracks

provided with the employees to sleep and if there are no barracks possibly

there would be appropriate allowances. In any case, if there is no provision

for sleeping accommodation or allowances, yet, that cannot mean that an

employee will come and sleep on top of the roof of a bus, and thereafter his

dependents can claim for compensation after his death takes place on

account of falling from roof where he was sleeping. The said act of sleeping

on top of the bus in facts of the present case cannot be said to arise out of or

can be said to be related to or in the course of the employment.

2. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of

the Commissioner dated 02.11.2012 is set aside.

Parties are left to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 07, 2014/cl