Delhi High Court
Raj Pal Saini vs Kamla on 29 July, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 330/2011 & CM No.13674/2011
Date of Decision: 29th July, 2016
RAJ PAL SAINI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. K.D. Saini, Advocate
versus
KAMLA ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Pratima N. Chauhan, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGEMENT
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30th April, 2011
whereby the Commissioner, Employees Compensation has awarded
compensation of Rs.3,07,229/- to respondent No.1.
2. The respondent is the mother of Rajesh who was working as a Mistri
on the second floor of property bearing No.94, Village Rampur, Delhi on
16th December, 2004 when he suffered an electric shock. Rajesh was taken
to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh for treatment where was he
declared brought dead. Rajesh was aged 20 years at the time of accident
and was survived by his mother, who filed an application for compensation
before the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, against the appellant.
3. The appellant contested the petition on the ground that the appellant
had engaged a Contractor, Babu Lal, who in turn had engaged Rajesh to do
the construction work in the appellant's property and as such, there was no
employer-employee relationship between the appellant and the deceased.
The appellant further pleaded that he had paid Rs.17,000/- to the respondent
on humanitarian grounds. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation
allowed the application and awarded compensation of Rs.3,07,229/- along
with interests at the rate of 12% per annum, which is under challenge in this
appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing of the
appeal that there was no employer-employee relationship between the
parties as the deceased was working under the contractor, Babu Lal, who
paid compensation of Rs.17,000/- to the respondent and the respondent
executed an undertaking in which admitted having received Rs.17,000/-. It
was further urged that the respondent gave an undertaking not to claim any
further compensation. It was further submitted that the appellant has been
acquitted in the criminal case under Section 288/304A IPC. Reliance was
placed on Om Prakash Batish v. Rajwati, JT 2008 (5) SC 443 and Ajay
Singh Lal v. Somwati, 116 (2005) DLT 421.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent urged at the time of hearing that
respondent is 65 years old widowed mother of the deceased Rajesh, who
died in an accident during the course of his employment on 16 th December,
2004. It was further submitted that two judgments relied upon by the
appellant are not applicable to the present case as they relate to the accidents
of 1996 whereas the present case relates to the accident in 2004 after the
amendment of the definition of "workman" in Section 2(1)(n) by the
Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 2000. It was submitted that
the words "other than a person whose employment is of causal nature and
who is otherwise than for the purpose of employer's trade and business" in
Section 2(1)(n) of the Act have been omitted. With respect to the
undertaking executed by the respondent accepting compensation of
Rs.17,000/- and not to claim any further amount, it was submitted that the
same was void under Section 17 of the Employee's Compensation Act.
Reliance was placed on Govind Goenka v. Dayawati, 2013 ACJ 1897, Mrs.
Kathleen Dias v. H.M. Coria & Sons, AIR (38) 1951 Cal. 513 and Shah v.
Rajankutty, 2006 ACJ 793.
6. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, this
Court is of the view that the appellant, being the principal employer, is liable
to pay the compensation to the respondent who was admittedly engaged in
the construction work at the petitioner's house and was electrocuted on 16th
December, 2009. This case squarely covered by Govind Goenka v.
Dayawati (supra) in which this Court held that the principal employer
cannot escape its liability on the ground that the deceased employee was
employed by the contractor.
7. There is no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. The
appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.1,53,229/- with the Registrar General of
this Court. The Registrar General is directed to transfer the said amount to
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch which shall keep a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- in fixed deposit in the name of the respondent in the following
manner: -
(i) Fixed deposit for Rs.35,000/- in the name of the respondent for a
period of 1 year.
(ii) Fixed deposit for Rs.35,000/- in the name of the respondent for a
period of 2 years.
(iii) Fixed deposit for Rs.30,000/- in the name of the respondent for a
period of 3 years.
8. The balance amount be transferred in the savings bank account of the
respondent, who is at liberty to withdraw the same.
9. Monthly interest on all the aforesaid FDRs shall be credited in the
savings bank account of respondent.
10. No loan or advance on pre-mature discharge shall be permitted
without the permission of this Court.
11. The respondent shall approach the UCO Bank for completing the
formalities for the disbursement of the award amount in terms of this order.
12. CM 13674/2011 is disposed of.
13. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties
under signature of Court Master.
14. Copy of this judgment be sent to UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
Branch.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
JULY 29, 2016/ak/dev
