Delhi High Court
B S E S Yamuna Power Ltd vs Praveen Khatoon & Ors on 9 August, 2017
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 09th August, 2017
+ FAO 427/2015 & CM No.26534/2017
B S E S YAMUNA POWER LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Mr. Sanjay
Rawat and Mr. Vikas Mehta,
Advocates
versus
PRAVEEN KHATOON & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mahesh Ranjan, Advocate for
respondents No.1 to 4
Ms. Aparajita Sharan proxy for Mr.
Sanjoy Ghose, ASC for GNCTD
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the order dated 15th September, 2015
passed by Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, whereby
compensation of Rs.5,14,875/- has been awarded to respondents No.1 to 4.
2. Respondents No.1 to 4 are the widow and three minor children of late
Mohd. Ali who died due to electrocution. Respondents No.1 to 4 filed an
application for compensation before Commissioner, Employees'
Compensation on the averments that respondent No.5 instructed the
deceased, Mohd. Ali to remove the fault in the electricity supply whereupon
the deceased climbed the electric pole at Pushta No.1261, Shamshan Ghat,
Geeta Colony, Delhi on 25th May, 2005 for removing the fault, but in the
meantime, the electricity supply was switched on without intimating the
deceased due to which the deceased suffered electric shock and succumbed
to his injuries on 28th May, 2005.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing that
there is no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and
respondent No.5. It is further submitted that under Section 12 of the
Employees' Compensation Act, the liability of compensation alone can be
fastened upon the appellant whereas the contractor, namely, respondent No.5
would be liable to pay interest.
4. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation has held that there
was a relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.5 and
the deceased. There is no infirmity in the findings of the Commissioner,
Employees' Compensation. Even otherwise, the finding of fact with respect
to the relationship of employment is not open to challenge under Section 30
of the Employees' Compensation Act.
5. With respect to the appellant's contention that the appellant is liable to
pay only the compensation amount, this Court is of the view that the
appellant is liable to pay the compensation amount including the interest.
The law in this regard is well settled that if the contractor does not deposit
the compensation amount with the Commissioner, Employees'
Compensation, the employer is liable to pay the compensation including the
interest and seek recovery rights against the contractor.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant be
granted recovery rights against respondent No.5. There is merit in the last
contention of the appellant that the appellant be granted recovery rights to
recover award amount from respondent No.5.
7. The appeal is partially allowed to the extent that the appellant is
granted recovery rights to recover the compensation amount along with
interest thereon from respondent No.5.
8. The appellant has deposited Rs.11,59,809/- with Commissioner,
Employees' Compensation and the Commissioner, Employees'
Compensation has transferred a sum of Rs.12,33,576/- to UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court Branch in terms of the order dated 22nd February, 2017.
9. Respondents No.1 to 4 are present in Court along with passbooks of
their savings bank accounts. The particulars of their savings bank accounts
are as under: -
(i) Praveen - Respondent No.1
Savings Bank Account No.096224130000207
Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Bawana Branch, Delhi.
(IFSC:ORBC0100962).
(ii) Sehnaz @ Baby Sahanaz - Respondent No.2
Savings Bank Account No.09931000002364
Punjab and Sind Bank,
Bawana Branch, Delhi.
(IFSC: PSIB0020993).
(iii) Irfan Ali - Respondent No.3
Savings Bank Account No.09622413000206
Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Bawana Branch, Delhi.
(IFSC:ORBC0100962).
(iv) Mahkasha - Respondent No.4
Savings Bank Account No.35046481556
State Bank of India,
Bawana Branch, Delhi.
(IFSC:SBIN0007895).
10. UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch is directed to disburse the
aforesaid amount to respondents No.1 to 4 in the following manner: -
(i) Rs.5 lakh be kept in 100 FDRs of Rs.5,000/- each in the name of
respondent No.1, Praveen Khatoon for the period 1 month to 100
months with cumulative interest;
(ii) Rs.2 lakh be kept in 40 FDRs of Rs.5,000/- each in the name of
respondent No.2, Sehnaz @ Baby Sahanaz for the period 1 month to 40
months with cumulative interest;
(iii) Rs.2 lakh be kept in the name of respondent No.3, Master Irfan Ali, till
he attains the age of majority with cumulative interest. On attaining
majority, UCO Bank shall release the interest amount to respondent
No.3 and keep the principal amount of Rs.2 lakh in 40 FDRs of
Rs.5,000/- each in the name of Irfan Ali for the period 1 month to 40
months with cumulative interest;
(iv) Rs.2 lakh be kept in the name of respondent No.4, Baby Mahkasha, till
she attains the age of majority with cumulative interest. On attaining
majority, UCO Bank shall release the interest amount to respondent
No.4 and keep the principal amount of Rs.2 lakh in 40 FDRs of
Rs.5,000/- in the name of Mahkasha each for the period 1 month to 40
months with cumulative interest;
11. The balance amount after keeping Rs.11,00,000/- in FDRs be released
to respondent No.1 Praveen Khatoon by transferring the same to her savings
bank account as mentioned in para 9 above.
12. All the original FDRs shall be retained by UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court Branch. However, the photocopies of the same shall be provided to
respondent No.1.
13. No cheque book or debit card be issued to respondents in respect of
their aforesaid savings bank account without permission of this Court and if
the same has already been issued, the concerned bank is directed to cancel
the same forthwith.
14. No loan or advance or pre-mature discharge shall be permitted
without the permission of this Court.
15. List for reporting compliance on 20th September, 2017.
16. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties under
signatures of the Court Master.
AUGUST 09, 2017 J.R. MIDHA, J.
rsk
