2018 Supreme(Del) 2347

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
J.R. MIDHA, J.
Kismat Singh – Appellant
Versus
Piariya Devi & Ors. – Respondents
FAO 270 of 2011
Decided On : 27-09-2018

The principal employer is liable to pay compensation to the employee of the contractor under Section 12 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. The death of the employee due to an accidental attack is an 'accident' for the purpose of the Act. Raising a false claim before the Court is an offence under Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:

The Court held that the principal employer is liable to pay compensation to the employee of the contractor under Section 12 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. The Court also held that the death of the employee due to an accidental attack is an 'accident' for the purpose of the Act. The Court further held that the appellant had raised false claims and had interfered with the administration of justice, and therefore, imposed heavy costs on the appellant and issued show cause notices for prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for raising false claims under Section 209 IPC.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased, Ajay, was working for the appellant, Kismat Singh, in his factory at Village Ranhola, Nangloi, Najafgarh Road, Delhi, through the contractor, Suresh. On 17th September, 2004, Ajay was attacked by Mahinder, Radhey Shyam and Dinesh, which resulted in injuries that subsequently resulted in his death. The deceased's mother, Piariya Devi, and son, Master Manish, filed a claim for compensation before the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation. The Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.3,27,705/- and funeral charges of Rs.2,500/- along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 30th October, 2004 to the respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the deceased, Ajay, was working for the appellant through the contractor, Suresh, and that the appellant, being the principal employer, was liable to pay the compensation to respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 12 of the Employee's Compensation Act. The Court also found that the death of Ajay due to the aforesaid attack was an 'accident' for the purpose of the Employee's Compensation Act. The Court further found that the appellant had raised false claims and had interfered with the administration of justice.

Issues: 1. Whether the principal employer is liable to pay compensation to the employee of the contractor under Section 12 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923? 2. Whether the death of the employee due to an accidental attack is an 'accident' for the purpose of the Act? 3. Whether the appellant had raised false claims and had interfered with the administration of justice?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the principal employer is liable to pay compensation to the employee of the contractor under Section 12 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. The Court relied on the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, which imposes the liability of payment of compensation on the principal with the right to recover the same from the contractor in respect of work being carried out by the contractor. The Court also relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in N.P. Lalan v. V.A. John, (1972) II LLJ 273 Ker and Govind Goenka v. Dayawati, (2011) 10 SCC 452, which held that the principal employer is liable to pay compensation to the employee of the contractor under Section 12 of the Act. 2. The Court held that the death of the employee due to an accidental attack is an 'accident' for the purpose of the Act. The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2000 ACJ 801 (SC), which held that an accidental attack is an 'accident' for the purpose of the Act. The Court also relied on the judgments of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh, (2017) 4 LLJ 522, Ram Niwas Gupta v. Bindu Singh, (2017) 241 DLT 1 and Star Press v. Meena Devi, (2017) 239 DLT 357, which held that an accidental attack is an 'accident' for the purpose of the Act. 3. The Court held that the appellant had raised false claims and had interfered with the administration of justice. The Court relied on the provisions of Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code, which makes dishonestly making a false claim in a Court of Justice an offence. The Court also relied on the judgment of this Court in H.S. Bedi v. National Highway Authority of India, 2016 (155) DRJ 259, which held that raising a false claim before the Court is an offence under Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code.

Final Decision: The Court disposed of the appeal by directing the appellant to deposit the balance award amount with the Registrar General of this Court within two weeks. The Court also imposed a cost of Rs.2,00,000/- on the appellant for instituting this frivolous litigation. The Court further issued show cause notices to the appellant to show cause as to why a complaint be not made against him under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for raising false claims under Section 209 IPC.