Sh. Chintoo @ Satyasheel Sharma v. Sh. Rama Shankar

1. By way of the present application filed under Section 151 CPC, the appellant seeks condonation of delay of 67 days in re-filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 67 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

3. Application is disposed of. FAO 25/2023 & CM APPL. 5720/2023

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act (hereinafter, the ‘EC Act’), the appellant (respondent No.1 below) has assailed order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner in Case No. CEC/I/07/ND/2022(New)/4094- 4096, whereby injury compensation claim of the respondent/claimant was allowed and the appellant directed to deposit Rs.3,28,749/alongwith simple interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 23.10.2018 till the date of payment, as well as penalty amount of Rs.98,625/-.

2. As apparent from the impugned order, the respondent claimed to be a mason hired by the appellant and one Sh.Ramesh for repair work of house bearing No.A-71, Gaurav Nagar-I, Gali No. 5, Near Shiv Mandir, Prem Nagar-III, Delhi. Before commencing the work, he had asked the appellant and Sh.Ramesh to make arrangements for proper safety measures in order to avoid any untoward incident, however, the same were not made. On 23.10.2018, at about 5:00 p.m., the respondent fell from the first floor of the abovementioned property while doing masonry work, as the fatta/balli provided to him was weak and broke. On account of the said incident, he had to be admitted in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Delhi. His right leg bone got fractured and he sustained other injuries as well. Reportedly, the appellant and Sh.Ramesh had initially assured the respondent that they would cover his medical expenses and also provide compensation if he did not make any police complaint. They had also taken signatures of the respondent and his wife on some papers, but had not read the same to either. Eventually, the appellant and Sh.Ramesh had backed out from their promise. When a complaint against the appellant and Sh.Ramesh was made to the police authorities, no action was taken. As such, the respondent filed an application under Section 156(3) read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. pursuant to which FIR No.102/2020 was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent was not employed by the appellant but by Sh.Amar. It is prayed that the matter may be remanded back as the appellant’s defense could not be placed on record of the learned Commissioner.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the records.

5. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that contrary to the contentions raised in the present appeal, the appellant had appeared in the proceedings before the learned Commissioner on 25.10.2021. He took a defense that he had engaged Sh.Amar, Sh.Pramod and Sh.Bhanu for repairing work of his house and it was Sh.Amar who had engaged the respondent for work as the appellant had gone to his native place i.e. Village Karmanpur, Ambedkar Nagar, U.P. The appellant also admitted that Sh.Ramesh was his relative and not a contractor. Sh.Ramesh had also appeared and took a defense that he is a plumber by profession and not a contractor. In the reply filed by the appellant, it was submitted that the incident had occurred on account of breaking of fatta/balli. Further, the respondent had produced his disability certificate as well as medical treatment records, alongwith the evidence placed on record. Considering the material placed on record and the stand taken by the respondent, the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the appellant was responsible to deposit compensation alongwith penalty.

6. It is clear from the record of proceedings before the learned Commissioner that the appellant has not denied the occurrence of the alleged incident. He has also not denied the factum of the respondent being engaged to do masonry work at premises owned by him. The only defense taken by the appellant is that it was Sh.Amar who had employed the respondent for doing the masonry work at the premises. In view of the fact that the appellant has not brought on record any material in support of this defence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Commissioner rightly concluded that it is the appellant who shall pay the compensation.

7. Having found no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner, the appeal is dismissed alongwith the pending application. Let the compensation amount be released to the respondent/claimant forthwith, if not already done.

8. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned Commissioner for information.

JUDGE FEBRUARY 06, 2023