Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO 206/2016 & CM. APPL. 17188/2016
Date of Decision: 14.03.2023 IN THE MATTER OF:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Pankaj Seth, Advocate
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘EC Act’), the appellant has assailed the order dated 03.02.2016 passed by learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, New Delhi in Case No.WCD/191/NW/03/1084-86 whereby the claim petition filed by respondent Nos.[1] to 7/claimants was allowed and the appellant held liable to deposit compensation alongwith interest.
2. The solitary contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that in the proceedings before the learned Commissioner, the employer-employee relationship between respondent No.8 and deceased/Balvinder Singh was not established as both were neighbours, living in vicinity of each other.
3. A perusal of the claim petition would show that the deceased was claimed to have been employed with respondent No.8 as a second driver on Truck bearing registration No.HR-37-6015 for about six months at a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. It was further claimed that on 22.07.2003 at about 1:30 p.m., respondent No.8 asked the deceased to remove electrical wire, which was hanging over the said truck. While following direction of respondent No.1 and in the process of removing over hanging wire, the deceased got electrocuted and died. A case bearing FIR No.476/2003 was registered under Section 304A IPC at Police Station Jahangirpuri. Statedly, the truck in question was insured with the appellant and the deceased was 34 years of age at the time of his death.
4. The claimants appeared and filed their evidence by way of affidavit. While the appellant filed a written statement, respondent No.8 was proceeded ex-parte. The learned Commissioner, after considering the evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was employed with respondent No.8 and died as a result of electrocution suffered out of and during the course of employment.
5. At the outset, this Court deems it expedient to outline the scope of appeal filed under Section 30 of the EC Act as delineated in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha reported as (2019) 11 SCC 514. In the captioned case, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the scope of interference in an appeal filed under Section 30 of EC Act is limited to substantial questions of law and findings of facts proved either way, are not to be likely interfered with. Relevant excerpt from the decision is reproduced hereunder:-
6. Keeping in view the above dicta of the Supreme Court, it is opined that this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 30 of the EC Act, should not interfere with an award passed by Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, except when there is a substantial question of law involved. The same view has also recently been voiced by the Supreme Court in Shahajahan and another v. Shriram General Ins. Co. Ltd. and another reported as 2022 ACJ 203.
7. Insofar as the finding of the learned Commissioner that the deceased was employed with respondent No.8, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has failed to produce any evidence contrary to the finding and no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the same is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. Pending application is disposed of. Let the remaining amount of compensation lying deposited with learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation be released to the claimants forthwith, alongwith interest accrued thereupon, if any, if not already done.
8. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned Commissioner for information.
JUDGE MARCH 14, 2023