The principal employer is jointly liable for compensation claims of employees engaged through contractors, ensuring workers receive adequate compensation for workplace injuries.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] (formerly known as Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923) challenging the judgment dated 26.06.2019 passed in ECA No.144/2014 by the IX Additional Small Causes Judge and XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member MACT-7, Bengaluru (SCCH-7) [Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] whereunder the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim made by the legal representatives of one Chinnaswami [Hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’] under Section 22 of the Act and awarded compensation of Rs. 11,576/- together with interest @ 12% per annum and directed the respondent No.2-Canon Detective and Security Services [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Canon’] to pay the compensation awarded while dismissing the petition as against respondent No.1-Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation [Hereinafter referred to as ‘BMRCL’] and Respondent No.3-M/s. GYT-Coastal JV. [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Coastal’]

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal.

3. The relevant facts in nutshell leading to the present appeal are that, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the incident dated 20.01.2012, the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Act contending, inter-alia, that while he was on duty on 20.01.2012, at 7.00 p.m., at Metro Station work compound at the KSRTC Bus stand, Majestic, Bengaluru, three unknown persons attacked the deceased with deadly weapons and caused grievous injuries. The deceased was employed by the respondent No.2-Canon as a security guard from 07.11.2011 on a salary of Rs. 7,500/- per month. The respondent No.2- Canon had supplied security personnel to respondent No.3- Coastal for looking after security arrangements. The respondent No.1-BMRCL had entrusted the work of putting up construction in the Metro Station at Majestic, Bangalore to the respondent No.3-Coastal. That the deceased was appointed as a security guard to take care of the construction material that was kept by the respondent No.3- Coastal in the process of execution of the construction works of the Metro Station compound, which construction it had undertaken pursuant to its agreement with respondent No.1-BMRCL.

4. The respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance in the claim proceedings and have filed separate statement of objections contesting the case of the claimant.

5. During the pendency of the claim proceedings, the deceased died on 31.10.2016, consequent to which his wife and children have come on record as claimants 1 to 5 in the said claim proceedings and prosecuted the same.

6. The deceased was examined as PW1, a doctor as PW2 and wife of the deceased as PW3. Exs.P1 to P17 have been marked in evidence. The representative of respondent No.2-Canon has been examined as RW1. The representative of respondent No.1-BMRCL has been examined as RW2 and the representative of respondent No.3-Coastal has been examined as RW3. Exs.R1 to R3 have been marked in evidence. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 26.06.2019 has partly allowed the claim petition as stated above. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.

7. Learned counsel Sri.Goutamdev C Ullal, appearing for the appellants/claimants, assailing the judgment of the Tribunal vehemently contends that the Tribunal erred in awarding a meager sum of Rs. 11,576/- together with interest @ 12% per annum by taking into consideration the say of the respondents that the deceased had the benefit of Employee’s State Insurance, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘ESI’]. It is further contended that the deceased had sustained grievous injuries in the incident which took place on 20.01.2012 wherein he sustained quadriplegia sensory loss of upper and lower limbs caused. That due to the injuries sustained in the incident, he ultimately died on 31.10.2016, consequent to which his legal representative