IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the employer is liable for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act when an employee suffers an accident in the course of employment.

JUDGMENT :

(Arun R. Pedneker, J.) :

1. The appellants by the present first appeal are challenging the Judgment and Order dated 11.03.1999 passed by the Commissioner of Workmens’ Compensation, Sangli in Workmens’ Compensation Application No. C-46 of 1993 dismissing the claim filed by the claimants.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the claim petition in brief are summarised as under:

3. One Kedar Mohammed Bedade died on 01.02.1993 in an accident by electrocution. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased who have filed the claim petition before the Commissioner of Workmens’ Compensation, Sangli (for short “the Tribunal”) contending that the accidental death of Late Kedar Bedade has happened in the course of his employment while being employed with respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

4. It is the case of the appellants that Late Bedade was working as a watchman at the worksite of respondent No. 1 at the Primary Health Centre at Bagni from six months prior to his death. Late Bedade was getting wages of Rs.23.8 per day and Rs.690/- per month as he was required to be at the construction site for all the 24 hours as he was working as a watchman at the worksite. On 01.02.1993 at about 2:30 p.m. while the deceased was working at a worksite, he went to start the electric motor for spraying water on the construction work where he got electric shock and thereby died on the spot. The accident was registered in the Ashta police station. Formerly, FIR was registered and enquiry was conducted. The appellant Nos. 1 to 4 are heirs and dependents of the deceased Bedade and filed the application for compensation against the opponents. The appellant’s claim is of Rs.60,000/- as compensation along with @18% interest in penalty and cost. The appellants contend that the respondents have failed to take care of the electric motor and its wire connection and the deceased died on the spot in the accident. The opponent No.1 has filed written statement at Exhibit-C-30 denying the claim of the claimants. It was denied that deceased died in the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the opponent No.1 on 01.02.1999. It was further denied there was relationship as employer and employee between the opponent No.1 and the deceased Bedade. Opponent No.2 also filed written statement denying the contentions of the applicants that there was relationship as employer and employee between the opponent No. 2 and the deceased at any time. Opponent No.3 is the Zilla Parishad, Primary Health Center at Bagni and Opponent No.4 is the Executive Engineer of Zilla Parishad, Bagni.

5. It is the case of the appellants that deceased was working under the supervision of opponent No.2. Opponent No.1 has taken a construction project from opponent Nos. 3 and 4.

6. Evidence was led before the Tribunal by Smt. Atarbi Bedade, widow of the deceased. Police constable Mr. Umrao Shamrao Chougule is also examined as applicant’s witness No. 2. Evidence was placed on record on behalf of respondent No.1 of the witness Mr. Pradeep Mohite who was working at the site of construction of residential quarters at Begni. The opponent has lead evidence of Mr. Pratap Y. Waidande, watchman working with Chouthai Construction Company, so also opponent No.2 Mr. Sharad Nalawade was examined as witness No.2. Witness No.4 was Mr. Baburao Sawant, who was the Section Engineer with opponent No.4 and has produced the construction contract between opponent No.1 and opponent No.4. So also the police papers were produced in the investigation carried by the police in the accidental death of Late Bedade.

7. Considering the evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has held that the deceased was not the employee of the opponent No.1 and had not died during the course of his employment with opponent No.1 and accordingly dismiss the application filed by the claimants.

8. Challenging the above Judgment of the Tribunal, Ms. learned counsel for the appellants submits that findings rendered by the Tribunal