Delhi High Court
Trackon Couriers Pvt Ltd vs Begraj Sing & Anr on 7 October, 2022
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 45/2017, CM. APPL. Nos.3049-3050/2017
Date of Decision: 07.10.2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
TRACKON COURIERS PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Prashant Kumar Mittal and
Ms.Dristi Bana, Advocates (Through
V.C.)
versus
SH. BEGRAJ SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.V.K.Singh, Ms.Prochi Singh,
Ms.Yakshi Rawal and Mr.S.Kumar,
Advocates for respondent No.3
alongwith Sh.Arvind Kumar Bansal,
SSO, ESIC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the
Employees' Compensation Act (hereinafter, referred as the 'Act'), the
appellant/respondent No.1 has challenged the ex-parte order dated
22.02.2016 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees'
Compensation, Vishwakarma Nagar, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi - 110095 in Case
No. CEC-D/NE/61/2015/504,505 titled as Sh. Begraj Singh & Anr. v. M/s
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:14.10.2022
13:39:52
Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
2. Mr.Prashant Kumar Mittal, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the learned Commissioner erred in not appreciating the fact that the
deceased-Vikram Singh was employed with the appellant only on
05.12.2013 and wrongly held that the employment began on 15.07.2008. In
this regard, he has referred to the employment details uploaded on the online
Portal of respondent No.3. Insofar as the employment date of 15.07.2008
mentioned in paragraph No.4(c) of the present appeal is concerned, it is
stated that the same was a typographical error.
3. Mr.V.K.Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other
hand, while refuting the aforenoted submissions of learned counsel for the
appellant, submits that the appellant had uploaded the employment details
only on 12.12.2013 on the online Portal of ESI, which was rather an
afterthought and done in order to avoid its liability under the Act. He also
submits that at the time of uploading the details of the employee, the
employer is also required to upload documents including appointment letter,
identification documents like Aadhar Card in support of proof of date of
birth as well as a certificate by the employer to the effect that the employee
was not suffering from any kind of disease, which has not been done in the
present case. Lastly, it is submitted that the appellant has also failed to
furnish any document in terms of Regulation 12 of the Employees' State
Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950.
4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have also gone
through the entire case record.
5. A perusal of the record would show that respondent Nos.1 and
2/claimants i.e., the parents of the deceased-Vikram Singh have filed a claim
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:14.10.2022
13:39:52
petition under Section 22 of the Act. It was stated that the deceased was
employed as a delivery boy with the appellant since 15.07.2008 at a salary
of Rs.7,500/- per month and was posted at its branch office. On 11.12.2013,
while the deceased was returning to the office after completing the work
assigned to him of delivering the articles/bags/letters/couriers, he met with
an accident at Maharajpur Railway Crossing, Shahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P.
resulting in fatal injuries. It was stated that Vikram Singh died at the spot. A
case was registered at P.S. Link Road and post-mortem of the deceased was
conducted in MMG Hospital, Ghaziabad, U.P. It was further stated by the
claimants that the deceased was the only earning member in the family and
after his demise, they had no source of income.
It is borne out from the record that summon were repeatedly issued to
the appellant but it failed to appear despite service. Eventually, on
21.11.2015, the appellant was proceeded ex-parte. The claimants have filed
their evidence by way of an affidavit as well as the documents in support of
their claim including the copies of the police examination documents,
Aadhar cards, election identity card and delivery reports/detailed track
events, which were exhibited as Ex. CW1/A to CW1/E.
6. As per copy of election identity card, deceased was 23 years of age as
on 01.01.2008. The learned Commissioner after considering the age of the
deceased as 29 years at the time of accident as well entire evidence on
record directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.8,39,680/- as
compensation on account of death payable to respondent Nos.1 and 2
alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 11.12.2013 till its realization within a
period of thirty days.
7. A perusal of the record would show that in the proceedings before the
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:14.10.2022
13:39:52
Commissioner, the claimants had averred by way of an affidavit that the
deceased was employed with the appellant since 15.07.2008. The averment
remained uncontested as the appellant failed to appear and contest the claim.
In the present appeal, though the appellant has taken a stand that the
deceased was employed since 05.12.2013, however the same has not been
supported by any document except the registration details of the deceased
uploaded on the online Portal of ESI after his death on 12.12.2013.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents have drawn the attention of the
Court to the following categorical admission that has been made in
paragraph No.4(c) of the appeal, which reads as under:
"That the deceased son of the dependant was the permanent
employees of the respondents as a delivery boy and was posted
at above mentioned branch office of the respondent and was
getting salary of Rs .7500/- per month. It is submitted that the
deceased was employed with the company since 15.07.2008."
(emphasis added)
9. It was admitted that the deceased employee was an insured person
having ESI (Insurance) No. 1114272916 and ESI Code (Employer's Code)
No. 11000808570001001 as defined in the ESIC Act.
10. Even if the admission made in the appeal is ignored, there is no
gainsaying that the appellant has failed to produce any document to
substantiate that the deceased was employed since 05.12.2013, which only
finds mention in the registration details uploaded online. Resultantly, I am of
the opinion that the reliance placed by the appellant on the registration
details of the deceased uploaded on the online Portal on 12.12.2013 i.e.,
after the death of the deceased is misplaced and of no consequence
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:14.10.2022
13:39:52
especially when the claimants' case remain uncontested in the proceedings
before the learned Commissioner. This Court also finds force in the
submission made on behalf of respondent No.3 that the registration details
of the deceased uploaded online after the death was rather an afterthought to
evade the liability of the claim.
11. Keeping in view the foregoing discussion, the present appeal is
dismissed. Let the amount deposited before the Registrar General of this
Court alongwith interest accrued thereupon be released to respondent Nos.1
and 2/claimants forthwith.
12. Pending applications are disposed of as infructuous.
13. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the concerned Commissioner
for information.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 7, 2022/v
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:14.10.2022
13:39:52
