M/S Bansal Enterprises vs Vinod Yadav
2014 Latest Caselaw 418 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           FAO No.500/2012

%                                                        23rd January, 2014

M/S BANSAL ENTERPRISES                                         ......Appellant
                 Through:                    Mr. Avtar Singh, Advocate.

                            VERSUS

VINOD YADAV                                                     ...... Respondent
                            Through:

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     has     been   filed   on   behalf   of the

appellant/management under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation

Act, 1923 impugning the judgment dated 12.9.2012 which has awarded

compensation to the workman/respondent.

2.           As per the case of the respondent/claimant he was working at a

salary of Rs.4,100/- per month with the appellant herein, respondent before

the Commissioner. Claimant was 28 years of age when on 7.1.2009 at about

5.30 p.m. while working in the factory a tool key of a machine broke and the

same penetrated the right eye of the respondent/applicant whereupon the

FAO No.500/2012                                                       Page 1 of 5
 claimant injured his right eye and became unconscious.        The management

got his treatment done. The respondent claimed that the management had

assured that they would give complete treatment and salary for the period,

but management did not and hence the present compensation claim. It is

also then pleaded by the respondent/applicant that he has suffered 80% loss

to earning capacity on account of injury to his eye and therefore

compensation of Rs.1.5 lacs be awarded alongwith 12% interest and penalty

as provided under Section 4A of the Act.                 The defence of the

appellant/management before the Commissioner was that deceased had

suffered injuries not at the factory premises but at his own home on account

of falling of a fan in the residence which had resulted in injury to his eye.


3.            This issue as to whether the injury was caused to the

respondent/workman in the factory establishment of the appellant or at his

own home has been dealt with in para 9 of the impugned judgment and by

which the Commissioner has held that the case of the Management is not

believable as per the evidence on record. Para 9 reads as under:-


     "9.      It has been stated by the application that on 7.1.2009 when he
     was working on the machine a tool key and it skidded and penetrated
     the right eye of the applicant and due to that he has diminished his
     vision and has been assessed by the doctor to the extent of 10%. The
     respondent stated that he did not sustain injury in the work premises
     and he has sustained injury while working on his fan at his resident.
FAO No.500/2012                                                    Page 2 of 5
      He worked with them upto 30.6.2009 and on 30.6.2009 he got his full
     and final and left the job. Had he sustained the injury while working
     he would definitely had received injury compensation. They have
     filed a police report whereby they have evidenced that the injury was
     caused at his residence. They have filed a police report whereby they
     have evidenced that the injury was caused at his residence. On the
     contrary the applicant has filed a report of the Labour Inspector who
     had visited the factory and had taken the statement both of the
     workman and the respondent. While taking the statement in the
     factory nothing of that sort came from the respondent that he had
     sustained injury at his residence. I do not find any logic in the
     contention of the respondent that the injury had been caused at his
     residence while working to repair a fan at his residence that too in the
     month of January. They have not brought any evidence to that effect
     nor did they disclose any source of information where it has been got
     from. They have not bring any evidence of any worker in the
     establishment to substantiate this contention of them. Hence I find
     that there is employee-employer relationship between applicant and
     respondent and the injury has been cause while working on the
     machine and machine particle pierced his eye. Hence my reply to the
     issues is in favour of the applicant and against the respondent."
4.            I note that the Commissioner has not given the date of the

report of the Labour Inspector however this report of the Labour Inspector is

dated 12.8.2010 and which is a document filed by the appellant/management

itself as Ex.MW1/6.


5.            Learned counsel for the appellant argues before me that the

respondent/workman itself had given a statement to the police, Ex.MW1/3

and where the workman/respondent admitted that he got injured at his

residence and consequently Commissioner has committed an error in

allowing the compensation application.
FAO No.500/2012                                                   Page 3 of 5
 6.            In my opinion, though the conclusion of the Commissioner is

correct, the complete reasoning has not been given in para 9 of the impugned

judgment. In my opinion, the real reason by which respondent/claimant is

entitled to compensation is that out of the two contesting documents being

Ex.MW1/3; which is the statement to the police of the workman; and the

report of the Labour Inspector dated 12.8.2010, Ex.MW1/6; it is the later

document which inspires more credibility and which has to be believed.

This is for the reason that the statement of the appellant is immediately given

one day after the incident wherein the respondent/workman could have been

under an impression that the management would compensate him and he

may not have therefore liked to prejudice the management however the

assurance which would have been given to the respondent/workman turned

out to be false and therefore the compensation claim had to be filed by the

respondent.    The most important aspect to be noted is that in Labour

Inspector's report Ex.MW1/6 management has itself admitted that it has

borne the costs for the entire medical treatment of the workman, and which

clearly shows that the workman/respondent would have suffered injury at

the factory premises because it is not believable as to why a management

would bear huge cost of medical treatment for an employee who gets injured

at his own residence on account of falling of a fan.      In my opinion, this
FAO No.500/2012                                                  Page 4 of 5
 statement given by the management before the Labour Inspector really lets

the cat out of the bag that actually the respondent/workman did in fact get

injured at the factory premises and not at his home as is being contended on

behalf of the appellant/management.


7.           Counsel for the appellant also argued that the compensation

claim be reduced however this argument is not based on any rationale

because admittedly the compensation formula is legally prescribed, and the

same has been accordingly applied by the Commissioner. The fact that the

appellant/management incurred medical expenditure is not a ground to

reduce the compensation because the workman is entitled both to the

amounts incurred towards not only medical expenditure but also the

compensation.


8.           No other issues are pressed before me.


9.           Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed,

leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




JANUARY 23, 2014                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne