Delhi High Court
Anil Bhardwaj And Anr vs Vimla Devi And Ors. on 28 January, 2022
$~38
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28.01.2022
+ FAO 20/2022 & CM. APPLS. 4856-57/2022, 4972/2022
ANIL BHARDWAJ AND ANR ..... Appellants
versus
VIMLA DEVI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants: Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Surya Prakash Mishra, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Appellants impugn award dated 11.11.2021, whereby the claim
petition filed by respondents under the Employee's Compensation
Act, 1923 has been allowed and compensation awarded.
3. The claim petition was filed by the wife, children and mother of
the deceased contending that the deceased was working as an
electrician in the appellant farmhouse for about 15 years and was
FAO 20/2022 Digitally Signed 1
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:29.01.2022
Signing Date:30.01.2022 10:12:35 20:44
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
earning about Rs.36,000/- per month. Claimants contended that the
appellant had even provided residential accommodation to the
deceased and the claimants and they were residing in the farmhouse.
4. As per the claim petition, on 11.09.2017 at about 11 A.M., one
Mr. Yograj, Manager of the farmhouse directed the deceased and
another person, Mr. Pramod to cut a Pipal tree.
5. The deceased and Mr. Pramod inspected the location, where
high-tension wires were going upon the tree and above the farms
house. It is contended that the deceased denied to cut the tree but the
Manager forced him to cut the tree.
6. When the deceased was cutting the tree, he got electrocuted on
account of high-tension electric cables which were going above the
farmhouse and received grievous injuries due electric shock.
7. The defence taken by the appellants in the written statement
was that there was no relationship of employer and employee between
the deceased and the appellants and that he was never employed by
them. It was also contended that there was no proof of salary of
Rs.36,000/- per month filed by the claimants.
8. The Commissioner held that there was relationship of employer
and employee that the death occurred during the course of
employment and accordingly allowed the claim petition.
FAO 20/2022 Digitally Signed 2
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:29.01.2022
Signing Date:30.01.2022 10:12:35 20:44
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased
was not working for the appellants, but he was working on contract
basis with various contractors, who would hire the farmhouse for
hosting parties and marriage functions.
10. It is further contended that the deceased was not residing in the
farmhouse and the alleged Aadhaar Card relied on by the claimants
was prepared later and the deceased was a permanent resident of Rai
Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh.
11. The Commissioner, on the issue of relationship, has noticed that
the claimants had produced on record the Aadhaar Card of the
deceased (Ex.PW-1/A), bank passbook of the deceased (Ex.PW-1/B)
and the birth certificates (Ex. PW-1/C) of the minor children of the
deceased. All the documents bear the address of Bhartiyam
Farmhouse, i.e. the appellant.
12. The Commissioner has noticed that all these documents have
been issued by different departments mentioning the same address of
the appellants' farmhouse.
13. Perusal of the bank passbook shows that the account was
opened sometime in the year 2011, whereas the accident had taken
place on 11.09.2017.
14. Commissioner has held that the documents i.e., MLC, FIR,
FAO 20/2022 Digitally Signed 3
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:29.01.2022
Signing Date:30.01.2022 10:12:35 20:44
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
death certificate, post-mortem report, status report filed by the
Investigating Officer before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Aadhaar
Card, bank passbook and birth certificates of the children of the
deceased clearly established that the deceased was employed with the
appellants and this established the relationship of employer and
employee.
15. Though the ages of the minor children are not mentioned in the
claim petition, however from the photographs annexed with the claim
petition it appears that they must have been about 7 to 9 years old,
which would show that they had been living in the said farm house for
several years.
16. There is no explanation on the part of the appellant as to how
the deceased and his family were living in the farm house for several
years, if there is no relationship of employer and employee.
17. The plea raised by learned counsel for appellant that the
deceased was employed on contract basis by various contractors, who
were hiring the farm house for hosting parties and marriage functions
was neither taken in the written statement filed before the
commissioner nor in the grounds of appeal before this Court.
18. Further, no evidence has been produced by the appellants to
show as to who the contractors who used to hire the premises were
and who were employing the deceased. Apart from not leading any
FAO 20/2022 Digitally Signed 4
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:29.01.2022
Signing Date:30.01.2022 10:12:35 20:44
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
evidence on the said point, the contractors have not even been named.
19. The fact that the deceased was provided accommodation in the
farmhouse and he and him family lived in the farmhouse for several
years shows that he was employed by the appellants and the
commissioner has rightly returned a finding of existence of
relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the
appellants.
20. With regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the
appellants that the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased
was drawing a salary of Rs. 36,000/- per month, the Commissioner
has also held that nothing has been produced to establish the income
of the deceased.
21. The Commissioner has thereafter, noticing that deceased was an
electrician, computed the compensation by taking the minimum wage
of a skilled worker as on the date of the accident, which was
Rs.12,166/- per month.
22. Thereafter, the Commissioner has applied the notification of the
Central Government dated 31.05.2010, which restricted the wages to
Rs. 8,000/- for the purposes of computation of compensation and
further restricted it to 50% of the monthly wage.
23. Clearly the Commissioner has correctly applied the law and no
FAO 20/2022 Digitally Signed 5
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:29.01.2022
Signing Date:30.01.2022 10:12:35 20:44
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
error has been committed by the Commissioner at the time of
computation of compensation.
24. I find no infirmity in the impugned order holding that the
deceased was employed with the appellants and in the computation of
the compensation.
25. In view of the above, I find no merit in the appeal. The appeal
is accordingly dismissed.
26. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
JANUARY 28, 2022
NA
FAO 20/2022 Digitally Signed 6
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:29.01.2022
Signing Date:30.01.2022 10:12:35 20:44
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
