Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar Jain vs Smt. Pooja on 18 March, 2021
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 18th March, 2021
+ FAO 92/2021 & CM. APPLS. 8358-60/2021
ANIL KUMAR JAIN ..... Appellant
versus
SMT. POOJA ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Akhil Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Appellant impugns judgment dated 14.01.2021 whereby based
on an admission, the claim petition has been allowed under Order XII
Rule 6 CPC.
2. The facts leading to the claim petition are that the appellant is a
scrap dealer and runs a business in a factory bearing number D-3/31,
Phase-II, Mayapuri Industrial Area.
3. On 17.10.2018, as per the claimant, a fire took place in the
factory of the appellant and the husband of the claimant died in the
fire. As per the claimant, her husband was employed by the appellant
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:19.03.2021 16:41:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
for sorting scrap and an explosion took place in the scrap while he
was sorting the same and he got caught in the fire and his burnt body
was recovered from under the scrap after search.
4. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has relied on the
admission of the appellant made in statement given by him before the
Commissioner on 15.01.2021.
5. Appellant had appeared before the Commissioner and admitted
that he runs a business of scrap and on the day of fire he was taking
lunch when one of his employees informed him through telephone call
that a fire was taking place. He admitted that 3-4 labourers hired by
him were sorting scrap.
6. He also stated that he was informed that the deceased came for
duty but after lunch he was not traceable and in the night the police
took out his dead body from under the burnt scrap. He also stated
before the Commissioner that he had paid Rs.11,000/- through a co-
worker for payment to the family of the deceased for cremation.
7. Based on the said admission, the Commissioner passed the
subject impugned award and directed payment of compensation to the
claimant.
8. Before this court on 12.03.2021, learned counsel submitted that
no fire had taken place in the premises of the appellant and prayed for
time to produce material for the same.
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:19.03.2021 16:41:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
9. Learned counsel has filed a copy of the FIR as well as the
charge-sheet. He submits that the FIR as well as the charge-sheet
clearly establish that fire did not take place in the factory of the
appellant and had taken place in adjoining premises, which is an open
piece of land.
10. It is contended by the leaned counsel for the appellant that an
opportunity should be granted to the appellant to cross-examine the
witnesses and the Commissioner has erred in passing an award based
merely on admission.
11. A perusal of the written statement filed by the appellant before
the Tribunal shows that there is an admission that fire had taken place
in his factory. In paragraph 4 of the written statement, it is admitted
that fire had taken place in his factory on account of which, it is
alleged, and heavy financial loss was suffered by him.
12. Perusal of copy of the FIR shows that though the place of
occurrence mentioned in paragraph 5 of the FIR is D-3/30, Phase-II,
Mayapuri, however, in the body of the FIR in paragraph 12, it is stated
that when the Investigating Officer reached the spot, he found that
there was fire in a factory of scrap and the fire brigade was at the spot
trying to control the fire and at about 9 P.M. the fire could be brought
under control. On inquiry by the Investigating officer, he was
informed that one boy name Sunil (deceased), who was working, was
missing.
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:19.03.2021 16:41:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
13. The burnt scrap was removed with the help of a JCB and the
body of Sunil was recovered at about 1 A.M. On inquiry it was found
that Sunil alongwith other labourers was working at the spot and
suddenly the scrap material caught fire.
14. The charge-sheet also reiterates the above facts. It is stated that
one of the workers stated that they were working in the plot of land
adjoining the shop of the appellant and when they were working there,
the scrap suddenly caught fire on account of which three of them ran
outside but Sunil was not visible and there was a lot of smoke.
15. It is stated that when the fire brigade reached the spot, they tried
to control the fire and subsequently the burnt body of Sunil was
recovered from the spot.
16. As per the charge sheet, one of the workers has stated that the
incident had happened on account of the negligence of the appellant
and the workers had several times requested the appellant to provide
fire safety measures but he did not pay any attention.
17. The contention of learned counsel, that the appellant is not
liable as the fire had not taken place in his premises and had taken
place in adjoining premises, does not further the case of the appellant
because there is no dispute that the deceased was employed by the
appellant on the said date. There is also no dispute that the scrap
material on which labourers were working belonged to the appellant
and was kept in an open plot of land adjoining the premises of the
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:19.03.2021 16:41:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
appellant. As notice in the impugned order, appellant himself
admitted the above facts in his statement before the commissioner.
18. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that
appellant may be permitted to lead evidence to disprove the allegation
is not sustainable, in view of the fact that there are clear admissions
made by the appellant in his written statement as well as in his
statement to the Commissioner.
19. It is settled position of law that any evidence contrary to the
pleadings, and/or in absence of pleadings cannot be permitted. Since
there are clear admissions on the part of the appellant about the
employment and the incident as well as the demise of the labour
employed by him in the fire, I find no infirmity in the impugned order
allowing the claim petition based on admissions.
20. There is no dispute with regard to the computation of
compensation and as such the same also does not warrant any
interference.
21. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 18, 2021
NA
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:19.03.2021 16:41:43
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
