Delhi High Court
M/S Vijay Sales vs Karamat Hussain & Ors on 22 March, 2017
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22nd March, 2017
+ FAO 229/2016 & C.M. Appl. 18945/2016
M/S VIJAY SALES ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate
versus
KARAMAT HUSSAIN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Peeush Kulshreshtha,
Advocate for respondent nos. 1
and 2
Mr. Mahesh Ranjan, Advocate
for Respondent no.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 29th
February, 2016 whereby the Commissioner, Employees'
Compensation awarded compensation of Rs.11,71,044/- to
respondents no.1 and 2.
2. Respondents no.1 and 2 are the parents of late Mehfooz Alam
who fell down from the first floor of the appellant's show room while
installing a split air conditioner. The Commissioner, Employees'
Compensation held the appellant being the principal employer and
respondent no.3 being the contractor to be jointly and severely liable
to pay the compensation of Rs.11,71,044/- including the interest up to
the date of the order.
3. The appellant has challenged the impugned order mainly on the
ground that there is no relationship of employer and employee
between the deceased and the appellant. Without prejudice, the
appellant is seeking recovery rights to recover the amount from the
respondent no.3.
4. The record of the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation
has been received. This Court is satisfied that there is no infirmity in
the findings of the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation holding
the appellant to be the principal employer and liable to pay the
compensation to respondents no.1 and 2. That apart, no substantial
question of law arises for consideration in this appeal which is a sine
qua non under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act.
5. With respect to the prayer of recovery rights against respondent
no.3, the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation has already held
in para 15 of the impugned order that the appellant is entitled to
recovery rights against respondent no.3.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the recovery
rights have not been recorded in the concluding para 34 of the
impugned order.
7. The appeal is dismissed. The liability of the appellant to pay
the amount of Rs.11,71,044/- to respondents no.1 and 2 is upheld.
Upon payment of the entire compensation amount by the appellant to
respondents no. 1 and 2, the appellant shall be entitled to recover the
same from respondent no.3.
8. The appellant has deposited Rs.8,15,400/- out of Rs.11,71,044/-
with the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation. The appellant is
directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.3,55,644/- with the UCO
Bank, Delhi High Court Branch by means of a cheque drawn in the
name of the UCO Bank A/c Karamat Hussain within a period of three
weeks from today.
9. With respect to the sum of Rs.8,15,400/- already deposited by
the appellant, a sum of Rs.5,85,522/- has already been released to the
respondent no.1 by the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation.
10. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation has transferred
the balance amount of Rs.2,35,220/- to the UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court Branch in terms of the order dated 17th February, 2017.
11. Respondents no.1 and 2 are having savings bank accounts with
State Bank of India, Hussainabad Branch. The particulars of their
savings bank accounts are as under:
- Karamat Hussain,
SB A/c No.11474452093,
State Bank of India,
Hussainabad, P.O. - Hussainabad (IFSC: SBIN0002947)
- Halima Bibi,
SB A/c No.34648104321,
State Bank of India,
Hussainabad, P.O. - Hussainabad (IFSC: SBIN0002947)
12. UCO Bank, DHC Branch is directed to keep a sum of Rs.2 lacs
in 40 FDRs of Rs.5,000/- each in the name of respondent no.2 for the
periods 1 month to 40 months, respectively, with cumulative interest.
The balance amount be released to respondent no.1 by transferring the
same to the saving bank account No.11474452093 with State Bank of
India, Hussainabad.
13. Upon deposit of the balance amount of Rs.3,55,644/-, UCO
Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, shall (i) release a sum of Rs.55,644/-
to respondents no. 1 and 2 in equal shares by transferring the same to
their savings bank accounts, and (ii) keep Rs.3 lakh in 60 FDRs of
Rs.5,000/- each in the name of respondent no.2 for the period 41
months to 100 months, respectively, with cumulative interest.
14. No cheque book or debit card be issued to the respondent No.2
by the State Bank of India, Hussainabad Branch without permission of
this Court. However, in case, the debit card/cheque book have already
been issued, by the State Bank of India, Hussainabad Branch shall
cancel the debit card and/or cheque book.
15. No loan or advance or pre-mature discharge shall be permitted
without the permission of this Court.
16. The claimants are permitted to approach this Court for pre-
mature release of FDR in the event of any financial exigency.
17. List for reporting compliance on 19th May, 2017.
18. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by the learned
counsel for the appellant in this matter.
19. This Court appreciates the Commissioner, Employees'
Compensation in formulating the legal prepositions and making
accurate and impartial adjudication in the impugned order.
20. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the parties,
under the signatures of the Court Master. Copy of this order be sent to
the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation. Copy of this order be
given dasti to learned Additional Standing Counsel, NCT of Delhi,
who shall communicate this order to the Secretary (Labour) as well as
the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation.
MARCH 22, 2017 J.R. MIDHA, J.
P
