Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 6th September, 2023
RAZIA BEGUM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R. K. Nain, Mr. Daksh Nain & Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Advs. (M:
9312070470)
Through: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, ASC, civil GNCTD with Mr. Vanshay Kaul, Adv.
Mr. Rajneesh Mishra, Adv. for R-2.
(M: 98701 11585)
Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, SPP with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Adv. with Mr. Brijendra Singh, DSP for CBI. (M:
9910770710)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29th January, 2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter “the Act”) in ECD/05/NW/2020/2754-56 titled “Smt. Razia Begum v. M/s. Mahaveera Transport Pvt. Ltd.”
3. The background of this matter is that the Petitioner is the mother of one Mohd. Parvej who was stated to be employed as driver in respect of a particular vehicle bearing No. HR-47A-3550, with the Respondent No.2 herein. He was driving the said vehicle in Badaun, Uttar Pradesh on 17th February, 2018, and he allegedly went missing thereafter. An FIR being FIR No. 0098/2018 dated 23rd February, 2018 was also registered in this regard at P.S. Wazirganj, Badaun, Uttar Pradesh.
4. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed the claim under Section 22 of the Act before the Ld. Commissioner, against both, the Respondent No.2/Employer as also Respondent No.3/Insurance Company, which has been rejected. By the impugned order, the claim for compensation under Section 22 of the Act, filed by the Petitioner herein i.e., the mother of the Employee who is claimed to be dead, has been rejected. The reasons stated for the above rejection was that seven years have not passed since the Employee went missing and hence the compensation was not maintainable.
5. On 15 December, 2021, notice was issued in this writ petition. Mr. Vashisht, Id. Counsel appearing for Respondent No.l/Commissioner ECA was also permitted to coordinate with the police authorities in Badaun, Uttar Pradesh to obtain a status report in respect of the FIR No.0098/2018 dated 23rd February, 2018 registered under Section 406 of IPC at P.S. Wazirganj, District-Badaun, Uttar Pradesh.
6. A status report filed from the police authorities was taken on record on 27th January, 2022. A perusal of the said status report along with the documents showed that, during the investigation, it has been found that apart from the FIR No.98/2018 registered under Section 406 of IPC at P.S. Wazirganj, District- Budaun, Uttar Pradesh, there is a separate FIR NO. 256/2018 also registered under section 406 of IPC at P.S. Shahjapur, District- Bhiwadi, Rajasthan.
7. Upon a perusal of the letter which was received from the Police Commissioner, District- Bhiwadi, Rajasthan, made it clear that further investigation was required to investigate the missing status of the son of the Petitioner herein, Mohd. Parvej, who was a truck driver with the Employer. The Court felt that such investigation was required especially because the FIR is registered under Section 406 IPC, but the truck with all the goods was seized from District- Budaun, Uttar Pradesh. On the basis of the status reports which was placed on record, the case did not appear to be one of theft, as the goods have not been found missing. The status report also showed that the missing person was also in touch with his brother, through his mobile number, around the time when he went missing.
8. In view of the disclosure in the status report, the Rajasthan police was directed to conduct further investigation and file a final status report to GNCTD. The relevant portion of the 22nd January, 2022 order reads as follows: “Upon a perusal of the letter which has been received from the Police Commissioner, District- Bhiwadi, Rajasthan, it is clear that, further investigation would be required to investigate the missing status of the son of the Petitioner herein, Mohd. Parvej, who was a truck driver with the Employer. Such investigation would be required especially because the FIR is registered under Section 406 IPC but the truck with all the goods has already been seized from District- Budaun, Uttar Pradesh. On the basis of the status reports which have been placed on record, the present case does not appear to be one of theft, as the goods have not been found missing. The latest status report also shows that the missing person was also in touch with bis brother, through his mobile number, around the time when he went missing.
4. Accordingly, the Rajasthan Police is also directed to conduct further investigation in an expeditious manner, into the whereabouts of Mohd. Parvej and supply a final status report to the Respondent No.l/GNCTD, so that the same can be placed before this Court, by the next date.
5. Let the Respondent No.2/Employer as also the Respondent No.3/M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., file their counter affidavits, within four weeks. Let the rejoinders thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
6. Respondent No. 2/Employer shall also conduct an enquiry with the family of the missing person and place an affidavit on record in respect of the result of the said enquiry.
7. On the next date, this Court would consider whether any interim compensation is to be directed in this matter”.
9. Thus, on 27th January, 2022 the Rajasthan police and the employer of the missing person were directed to conduct further enquiry and investigation. Insurance company was also directed to file its counter affidavit.
10. The SHO, PS Shahjahanpur, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan then filed a status report on 19th April, 2022. The court perused the Status Report and found that the same was inconclusive and was of the view that no concrete facts were ascertained as to the whereabouts of the missing person. On the said date, detailed submissions were made by the insurance company and the employer which are extracted below:
11. Owing to the fact that in an incident which occurred in 2018 where the police were unable to give a concrete response as to the status report of the missing person, the Court was of the opinion that the police authorities of all three states being Haryana, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh are simply dragging their feet. The Petitioner- Smt. Razia Begum, who is the widowed mother of the missing Employee-Driver, was unable to obtain any monetary compensation or any closure in this matter. Accordingly, it was deemed appropriate to hand over the investigation, pursuant to the two FIRs, being FIR No.98/2018 and FIR No.256/2018, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Copy of the order was directed to be served upon Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Special P.P., CBI.
12. After conducting proper investigation, the CBI was directed to place a status report on record. In addition sum of Rs. 3 lacs was awarded in favour of the Petitioner as interim compensation. The Insurance Company, was directed to deposit the said amount with the commissioner which was to be released to the mother of the Petitioner after verifying her credentials.
13. The insurance company sought modification of the said order which was rejected by this court vide order dated 23rd May, 2022 in the following terms:
14. Vide order dated 19th April, 2022, this Court had transferred the investigation in the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI then conducted its investigation and filed various interim reports. The Investigating Officer from the CBI was also present in court from time to time. The CBI submitted one status report and further time was sought for conducting the investigation. Vide order dated 27th July, 2022, a further status report on behalf of the CBI was directed to be filed.
15. On 20th October, 2022, Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI had filed the status report dated 19th October, 2022, which was presented to the Court. The said status report was signed by Mr. B.P. Singh, the concerned IO, CBI, SCI. The said officer was also present in Court. On the basis of the said report, the Court had directed that further investigation be concluded and the final status report be placed on record.
16. Today, a further status report on behalf of the CBI has been received. As per the said status report, after thorough investigation through GPS data of the vehicle, the CCTV footage at the various Toll Plazas, as also statements recorded by the CBI, it appears that the CBI has come to the conclusion that based on circumstantial evidence, Mohd. Parvej, who is son of the Petitioner has been murdered and one Mr. Anil Yadav, who was the conductor/helper in M/s Mahaveera Transport Pvt. Ltd., has also been killed.
17. Further, Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI submits that they were unable to trace the body of Parvej, as the incident has taken place long back. However, as per para 60 of the status report the skeleton of Parvej was found, and the same was sent for DNA testing. The extract of the report is set out below:
18. In view of the facts now disclosed in the status reports and the evidence that has now emerged, the missing person ought to be taken as dead as the investigation may not reveal anything further qua the tracing of the missing person. Thus, there is no reason to keep the present writ petition pending. The compensation deserves to be determined and released to the Petitioner. The Court having perused the status report filed by the CBI, is clearly of the opinion that Petitioner’s case deserves to be considered for compensation under Section 22 of the Act.
19. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21st September, 2021 is set aside. The Commissioner, Employees Compensation shall now process the case of the Petitioner and calculate and release the compensation under Section 22 of the Act.
20. The CBI shall continue the investigation and shall proceed in the case of both Parvej and Anil Yadav in accordance with law, including registration of FIRs, if the need so arises.
21. The Court would like to record its appreciation for the CBI and the Investigating Officer B.P. Singh, the concerned IO, CBI, SCI, who have been able to bring a closure to this matter, especially for the mother of Mr. Parvez.
22. Considering the nature of the matter and the fact that substantial delay has already occurred, the Commissioner is directed to dispose of this matter on an early date and in any case, within a period of three months. The status report is taken on record. The interim compensation of Rs.[3] lakhs, which was granted to the Petitioner shall be adjusted in the final compensation. Further, costs of Rs.50,000/- is also awarded to the Petitioner, towards the present writ petition, which shall be added to the compensation awarded by the Commissioner and shall be released.
23. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
24. List before the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act on 4th October, 2023. Mr. Vashisht, Id. Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/Commissioner ECA to communicate the present order, to the concerned authority.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SEPTEMBER 6, 2023/dk/ks (corrected & released on 13th September, 2023)