THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.352 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed aggrieved by

the order dated 27.10.2011 passed in W.C.No.1 of 2006 F on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour at

Nizamabad.

2. Heard Mr. A. Chandra Shekar, learned counsel for appellants, Mr. Shaila D, learned counsel representing

Mr. N. Mukunda Reddy, learned counsel for respondents.

3. Appellants are Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 (Northern Power Distribution Company Limited (NPDCL)) and respondents are the applicants before the Commissioner. Applicants are wife and children of the deceased workman, (Devasari Pochanna) was aged 25 years, working as Electrician in NPDCL, engaged by appellants (NPDCL) at Aloor Village under AAE Operation, Degaon. On 19.04.2005 at 9:20 A.M., while the deceased was attending

electrical work at Transformer No.34/SS repairing AB Switch, he died of shock on the Transformer. A case in Crime No.82 of 2005 was registered, Inquest and Post Mortem of the deceased was conducted by duty Doctor at Government Hospital, Armoor.

4. Applicants, wife and two minor children of deceased, claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Opposite party (NPDCL) contended that there was no employer - employee relationship between NPDCL and the deceased and the lineman could not have engaged a third party. Exgratia amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid on 24.02.2006. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was arranged by staff members of the Company, Commissioner, after considering the entire factual matrix, by order dated 27.10.2011, awarded a compensation of Rs.4,16,792/-, the amount is paid.

5. Learned Commissioner held that AE (RW.1) had deposed that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid as exgratia, and also deposed that it is the full and final satisfaction of the entire claim or liability. Learned Commissioner held that no stranger would dare to climb a live current line, Commissioner, after examining the documents i.e., Exs.A1 to A5 and Exs.B1 to B4, held no consumer would engage/seek person other than the department.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for appellants – NPDCL submitted that deceased was not an employee on the rolls of department. It is submitted that deceased ventured on his own to attend the repair work. The non-functioning of Transformer No.34/SS and attempted to repair the AB Switch in the early hours of 19.04.2005, without any prior intimation or authorization from the concerned departmental personnel. It is further submitted that if any personnel of the department, on a Complaint/Grievance, intend to undertake repair work or address any malfunction of a Transformer, the personnel must obtain line clearance from concerned authorities of electrical sub-station. It is thereafter department personnel can attend the grievance/complaint.

7. It is submitted that in the present case, no such grievance/complaint was brought to the notice of department. That the alleged employment of the deceased by a Contractor must be established by documentary evidence, in order to substantiate that the deceased was a 'workman' within the meaning of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act, 1923’). That the Commissioner erred both factually and legally in awarding compensation to applicants. It is also submitted that in the absence of any evidence of an employer-employee relationship, finding by the Commissioner to the effect and the award of compensation is unsustainable. That no evidence was placed on record to establish such a relationship, except an assertion that deceased was being paid Rs.200/- per day.

8. Learned counsel for respondents–applicants submitted that deceased was employed by a lineman (employee of department) and that on the fateful day, the lineman was very much present at the work spot. It is further submitted that any repair work of electrical line has to be undertaken only in the presence of the Lineman. That the deceased on instructions of staff