##PAGE1##

FAO-2307-2017 (O&M) 1

124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-2307-2017 (O&M)

Date of decision : 24.03.2026

KRISHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER ....Appellants

Versus

KAKKAR NURSING HOME AND ANOTHER ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present : Mr. Mohan Singla, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Kataria, Advocate and

Mr. Arjun Sawhni, Advocate for the respondents.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Claimants are in appeal aggrieved of the order dated 16.12.2016

passed by the Commissioner under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1923 Act’) whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants seeking compensation on account of death of their son Anil Kumar in an accident at the building owned by the respondent, has

been dismissed.

2. As per the claimants, deceased Anil Kumar, aged 31 years, was working as a labourer. He was hired/employed by the respondent for transporting building material for the construction being raised by the respondent at his hospital site. On the fateful day i.e., 09.09.2015, deceased

DEEPAK KUMAR

2026.03.25 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-2307-2017 (O&M) 2

went to the hospital site with the material. While the material was being taken onto the ramp, he fell down from 30/35ft. height and lost his life. FIR

No.443 dated 10.09.2015 under Section 304A was registered.

2.1. The claimants claim that the deceased Anil Kumar lost his life in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment and thus,

the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

3. The claim petition was contested by the respondent. Though, it was admitted that the deceased visited the hospital to supply the building material and lost his life in the accident, however, it was claimed that there is no employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the

respondent.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, Commissioner framed the

following Issues:

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to get the compensation under the Act? OPA

2. Whether there was a relationship of employer and employee between the deceased (Anil) and the

respondents?

3. Whether application is not maintainable?

4. Relief.

5. While answering Issues No.1 to 3, the Commissioner found that the claimants failed to prove employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the respondent. In the absence of any evidence to prove

DEEPAK KUMAR

2026.03.25 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-2307-2017 (O&M) 3

engagement of deceased by the respondent, the claim petition cannot be

maintained. The same was accordingly, dismissed.

6. Counsel for the appellants has assailed the order passed by the Commissioner. It has been contended that the respondents in their written statement have admitted that the deceased died within the precincts of their site. The admission on their part to the extent that the deceased indeed visited them to supply the building material proves that the deceased was employed by the respondents and thus would fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(dd)(iii) read with Schedule II appended to the 1923 Act. Counsel submits that the deceased having been employed to transport building material, would fall within the ambit of ‘employee’ as contemplated under Section 2(1)(dd). The Commissioner having passed the order against the

statutory mandate, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

7. Per contra, Mr. Bhandari submits that the admission referred to by the counsel for the appellants, in fact does not show that the deceased was hired. The admission does not show as to whether any amount was paid to the deceased and thus he would not fall within the ambit of ‘hire’. He thus submits that the Commissioner has rightly rejected the claim petition in the absence of there being any evidence to prove employer-employee

relationship between the deceased and the respondent.

8. I have heard counsel for the parties a