Delhi High Court
Sudhir Bansal vs Shyama Devi & Ors on 2 July, 2015
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 99/2010 & CM Nos.4769/2010, 4770/2010 & 7571/2015
Date of Decision : 02th July, 2015
SUDHIR BANSAL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate.
versus
SHYAMA DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.C. Juneja and Ms. Asha Hans,
Advocates with respondent no.1 & 4.
Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the order dated 15 th December, 2009
where the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation has awarded
compensation of Rs.3,06,180/- to the respondents.
2. Respondent no.1 is the widow and respondents no.2 to 4 are the
children of Late Gaend Lal who was working as a mason under the appellant
at Rashtrapati Bhawan and on 24th December, 2004, he fell down from a
height resulting in head injuries. Gaend Lal was taken by the petitioner to
Dr. RML Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on 26th December,
2004. The police initially registered FIR No.339/04 under Section 337 IPC
and subsequently Section 304-A, IPC was also added in the said FIR.
3. The respondents filed an application for compensation under the
Workmen's Compensation Act against the appellant who contested the
respondents' claim on the ground that there was no employee-employer
relationship between the parties. The appellant pleaded in the written
statement that he was working as a Contractor at Rashtrapati Bhawan and he
used to engage the deceased for welding work but on 24 th December, 2004,
there was no welding work. At about 04.00 P.M. at that day, the deceased
came to the site of Rashtrapati Bhawan under the influence of liquor to meet
his friend and was unable to control his movement while talking to the
labourer and fell down resulting in fatal injuries.
4. The appellant filed the written statement before the Commissioner,
Workmen's Compensation but stopped appearing thereafter and was
proceeded ex-parte. The respondents led evidence of respondent no.1 in
which she proved the MLC and Post-mortem report as Ex.PW1/1 and
Ex.PW1/2. Respondent no.1 proved the entry register gate pass dated 24 th
December, 2004 as Ex.PW1/3. She proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/4.
She proved the legal notice dated 24th January, 2005 as Ex.PW1/5 and
registered AD receipt as Ex.Pw1/6. Ex.PW1/3, the entry pass of the
deceased in the Rashtrapati Bhawan records that the deceased entered the
Rashtrapati Bhawan at 8.43 A.M on 24th December, 2004.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the respondents also
placed on record the permission letter dated 30th November, 2004 of the
appellant seeking permission from the Rashtrapati Bhawan to permit the
entry of 12 persons including the deceased for the month commencing 01st
December, 2004 to 31st December, 2004. The respondents also placed the
attendance card of the deceased.
6. Vide order dated 24th April, 2015, this Court requisitioned the record
of the criminal case relating to FIR No.339/04 as well as the record of the
police station which have been received. Mr. O.P. Saxena, learned APP for
State has submits that the site plan in the criminal case shows the site of the
accident inside the Rashtrapati Bhawan. The photographs of the site are also
available in the criminal case. Learned APP for State further submits that the
statement of the co-worker recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
records that the deceased was on duty under the appellant at the time of the
accident.
7. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there
was no employee-employer relationship between the parties and the
deceased came to the Rashtrapati Bhawan at 04.00 P.M. on 24th December,
2004. Learned counsel for the appellant however admits that the appellant
has not led any evidence before the Commissioner, Workmen's
Compensation and the testimony of respondent no.1 remained unrebutted.
Learned counsel for the appellant also does not dispute that the appellant
had taken the deceased to Dr. RML Hospital but submits that he had done so
on humanitarian grounds.
8. This Court is of the view that no question of law is involved in this
appeal. That apart, this court finds no infirmity in the order passes by the
learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. Since the appellant
choose not to lead any evidence before the Trial Court and also did not cross
examine the respondents' witness, there is no infirmity on the findings of the
learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation with respect to
relationship of employer-employee as well as with respect to the accident
during the course of the employment which resulted in the death of Gaend
Lal. The presumptions drawn by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's
Compensation are supported by the entry pass, Ex.PW1/3 as well as the
permission letter sought by the appellant for entry of the workers into the
Rashtrapati Bhawan which includes the name of the deceased.
9. There is no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. Pending
applications are disposed of.
10. The appellant has deposited Rs.6,18,166/- (Rs.3,06,180/- +
Rs.3,11,986/-) with the Registrar General of this Court in terms of orders
dated 24th April, 2015 and 07th May, 2015. The Registrar General is directed
to transfer the entire amount of Rs.6,18,166/- along with interest accrued
thereon to UCO Bank, Delhi High Court branch by means of a cheque
drawn in the name of UCO Bank A/c Shyama Devi. The UCO Bank Delhi
High Court Branch shall keep Rs.5,00,000/- in fixed deposits in the
following manner:
(i) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the name of respondent No.1,
Shyama Devi for a period of six months.
(ii) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the name of respondent No.1,
Shyama Devi for a period of one year.
(iii) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the name of respondent No.1,
Shyama Devi for a period of 1½ years.
(iv) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the name of respondent No.1,
Shyama Devi for a period of two years.
(v) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the name of respondent No.1,
Shyama Devi for a period of 2½ years.
(vi) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the name of respondent No.1,
Shyama Devi for a period of 3 years.
(vii) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the name of respondent No.1,
Shyama Devi for a period of 3½ years.
(viii) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the name of respondent No.1,
Shyama Devi for a period of four years.
(ix) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the name of respondent No.1,
Shyama Devi for a period of 4½ years.
(x) Fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/- in the name of respondent No.1,
Shyama Devi for a period of 5 years.
11. The UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch shall make payment of the
balance amount, after making fixed deposits of Rs.5,00,000/-, to Respondent
no 1 to 4 in the following proportion:
(i) Shyama Devi (Respondent no.1) - 30%,
(ii) Rajesh Kumar (Respondent no.2) - 20%,
(iii) Kumari Soni (Respondent no.3) - 30%,
(iv) Raj Kumar (Respondent no. 4) - 20%.
12. The interest on all the fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by
transferring the same in the savings bank account no. 21170100069719 of
respondent no.1 with Bank of Baroda, Sultanpur Mazra, New Delhi.
13. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by UCO Bank.
However, the photocopies of the FDRs shall be given to the respondent no.1.
14. On maturity, the UCO Bank shall automatically credit the maturity
amount in the savings bank account of the respondent no.1.
15. No loan, advance or premature discharge of the FDRs shall be
permitted without the permission of this Court.
16. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsels for both the parties as
well as UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch under the signatures of the
Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
JULY 02, 2015
ak
