IMPORTANT POINTS• The principal employer was liable to compensate the worker with a corresponding right to be indemnified by the contractor.
• Section 12(2) as originally enacted did not include a provision to make any other person liable to pay compensation other than the employer.
• As a result of this amendment, the principal is entitled to be indemnified not only by the contractor, as was the pre-amendment position, but also by “any other person from whom the workman could have recovered compensation.”

Surendra Mohan, J.

The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a total stranger to the contractual relationship between the victim of an accident arising out of his employment, and his employer could be made liable to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?

2. The above question has been referred for our decision by the Division Bench, doubting the correctness of the dictum laid down by another Division Bench of this Court in an earlier decision, Kerala State Electricity Board v. Sundaram Estate (1987 (1) K.L.T. 425). The said decision has held that even a total stranger could be made liable.

3. The factual matrix out of which the above question arises can be summarized as under:

Respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of late Sri. M.K. Subhash @ Suma, a construction worker who was electrocuted. The deceased was a concrete worker under the fourth respondent. The third respondent is the owner of a commercial building at Perumpilly Bhagam, Narakkal. She is conducting a small tea shop in the building. She entrusted the fourth respondent with the construction of an additional floor above the existing ground floor of the building. The building is situate in a property having an area of one cent. The work of construction was taken up by the fourth respondent on contract basis. The deceased was his workman. On 23.10.2004 at about 6.45 p.m. while engaged in the construction work on the upper floor of the building, he lifted an iron rod which hit the 11 KV electric line that was passing overhead and was electrocuted. According to respondents 1 and 2, the deceased was 22 years old and was earning Rs.190/- per day. They claimed an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation.

4. The third respondent opposed the claim for compensation contending that she was only running a small teashop in the very same building having an area of just one cent. She had not employed the deceased, nor paid any wages to him. Therefore, according to her, she was not a necessary party to the proceedings. The fourth respondent denied that he was a contractor, as stated in the application. He was only a worker like the deceased. They were engaged by the third respondent. Therefore, he was not having employer-employee relationship with the deceased.

5. The third respondent filed a petition to implead the Kerala State Electricity Board as an opposite party before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner pointing out that the workman had died of electrocution from the KSEB line. The impleading petition was allowed. Though notice was received, they did not appear in the proceedings and were therefore declared ex parte. After taking evidence, the matter was considered by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. As per order dated 25.10.2011 an amount of Rs.4,42,740/- has been awarded as compensation to respondents 1 and 2. The Kerala State Electricity Board ('KSEB' for short) has been directed to pay the said amount. This appeal is filed by the KSEB aggrieved by the said order.

6. According to the Standing Counsel for the KSEB, the Board had absolutely no relationship with the deceased worker. He was employed by the fourth respondent who was a contractor under the third respondent. The KSEB had laid the 11 KV line and the same was being maintained properly. It is pointed out that admittedly the accident had occurred when the deceased lifted an iron rod which came into contact with the 11 KV line. It was not due to any default on the part of the KSEB that the accident had occurred. In the absence of any contractual relationship with the deceased, the KSEB cannot be made liable to pay the compensation amount as ordered by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. It is contended by the learned counsel that, Section 12(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) brings within its scope only persons who are having contractual relationship with the deceased. The provision does not