Delhi High Court
R P Singh vs Anoop on 20 September, 2018
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 20th September, 2018
+ FAO 469/2016 & CM No.35164/2016
R P SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Prity Sharma and Ms. Rijuta
Mohanty, Advs.
versus
ANOOP ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Madhusudan and Ms. Seechita
Dixit, Advs. with respondent in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 25 th January,
2016 whereby compensation of Rs.5,94,581/- along with interest @ 12%
per annum has been awarded to the respondent.
2. The respondent filed the application for compensation before the
Commissioner, Employees' Compensation on 20th November, 2011 on the
averments that he was working as a blender machine operator with the
appellant at monthly wages of Rs.8,000/- per month; on 25th June, 2011 at
about 5:45 P.M., the respondent suffered grievous injuries while working on
the blender machine which resulted in the amputation of the left hand; the
respondent was hospitalised by the appellant; the police registered FIR
No.169/2011 at P.S. Madhu Vihar, Delhi; and the accident occurred during
the course of his employment with the appellant.
3. The appellant denied the relationship of employment with the
respondent. The appellant denied that the alleged accident occurred on 25th
June, 2011 in his premises. According to the appellant, the respondent was
seen two days prior to the accident outside the factory premises. The
appellant further denied having hospitalized the respondent.
4. The respondent appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and reiterated
the averments made in the compensation application. The respondent proved
the FIR No.169/2011 (Ex.PW1/A), legal notice (Ex.PW1/B), disability
certificate (Ex.PW1/C), charge sheet (Ex.PW1/D colly) and transfer
certificate (Ex.PW1/E colly). The respondent examined four witnesses to
prove that he was working with the appellant and the accident arose during
the course of his employment with the appellant.
5. The appellant appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and denied the
relationship of employment as well as the alleged accident. The appellant
examined Rangi Lal as RW-2 who supported the appellant's case. RW-2,
however, admitted that some police personnel came to the factory premises
on 24th June, 2011 on a complaint lodged by the respondent and the police
also seized the blender machine.
6. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation held that the
respondent was working with the appellant and the accident dated 25 th June,
2011 occurred during the course of his employment with the appellant. The
Commissioner relied on the statement of RW-2 that the police came to the
appellant's factory and sealed the blender machine on which the respondent
suffered injuries. The Commissioner also noted that the appellant's mobile
number was mentioned on the MLC which clearly shows that that appellant
had taken the respondent to the hospital and the appellant had made false
statement disputing it.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing that the
respondent was not employed with the appellant and he did not sustain any
injury during the course of his employment with the appellant. It is further
submitted that alleged accident did not occur in the appellant's factory
premises.
8. This Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for
consideration in this appeal, which is sine qua non in terms of Section 30 of
the Employee's Compensation Act. That apart, there is no infirmity in the
findings of fact by the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation. This
Court is satisfied that the respondent was working with the appellant and he
suffered the alleged accident during the course of his employment with the
appellant.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that principal amount of
Rs.5,94,581/- has already been deposited by the appellant before the
Commissioner, Employees' Compensation on 14th September, 2016. The
appellant present in Court undertakes to deposit the interest on the
compensation amount with Registrar General of this Court within a period of
three months from today. This undertaking of the appellant is accepted.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner has
imposed a penalty of Rs.2,91,291/- vide order dated 30th June, 2016 without
the service of the show cause notice and without affording an opportunity of
hearing to the appellant.
11. The record of the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation has been
perused. The show cause notice dated 22nd June, 2016 was issued to the
appellant which returned unserved with the report that the address given was
not correct. As such, there is no valid service of show cause notice on the
appellant. The appellant present in Court accepts the show cause notice and
the appellant has been heard afresh with respect to the imposition of penalty.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is
unemployed and has no means to pay the penalty amount. It is submitted
that a lenient view be taken in this matter. Learned counsel for the
respondent submits that the penalty of the maximum limit of 50% be
imposed on the appellant.
13. In the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the
undertaking given by the appellant to deposit the interest amount within
three months, a penalty of Rs.2,25,000/- is imposed on the appellant.
14. The appellant undertakes to deposit the penalty amount of
Rs.2,25,000/- with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of five
months from today. This undertaking of the appellant is also accepted.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent should
compound the criminal case upon receipt of the interest and penalty amount.
The respondent present in Court along with his counsel agrees to compound
the criminal case upon receipt of compensation of Rs.60,000/- from the
appellant which is acceptable to the appellant. The appellant undertakes to
pay Rs.60,000/- to the respondent within three months from today. The
respondent present in Court undertakes to compound the criminal case
within 15 days of the receipt of the entire amount in terms of this judgment.
These undertakings of both the parties are accepted. The parties shall jointly
seek deferment of the criminal case for a period of five months.
16. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The pending application
is also disposed of.
17. List for reporting compliance and disbursement of the interest amount
on 21st December, 2018.
18. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsels for the parties under
signature of Court Master.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 J.R.MIDHA, J.
ak
