SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 52383

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (OPERATION) AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
NENAVATH VITTAL – Respondent
CMA 125/2015



THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.125 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 10.06.2014 passed in E.C.No.2 of 2011 NF on the file of the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad.

2. Heard Mr. A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for appellants – National Power Distribution Company Limited (NPDCL). There is no representation on behalf of respondent/applicant.

3. Appeal is of year 2015, incident occurred in the year 2010. This Court is not inclined to adjourn the matter any further, matter is decided on merits.

4. Brief facts:

Appellants herein are the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and respondent is the applicant before the Commissioner. The respondent/applicant is a contract labourer employed to do electrical work on electric poles/lines. An amount of Rs.5,500/- was being paid as salary to applicant. On 18.12.2010 at 11:30 A.M., Mr. Sateesh Kumar, G. Ravinder and Deshai, Junior Linemen of Sangam Sub-Station asked the applicant to climb the electric pole and instructed him to disconnect the power supply to Hajipur Village in order to collect domestic electricity bills. They requested Mr. Neelsingh, operator, to give them Line Clearance (LC). Lineman asked the applicant to climb the pole. Applicant attended to work as requested by Lineman. After climbing the pole and while attending to the work, he was electrocuted and fell down. He was immediately shifted to Banswada Government Hospital, from there to Nizamabad and from there to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad. Both the hands and right leg of the applicant were amputated. The applicant was aged 28 years and was being paid Rs.3,200/- per month (as per averment). A case in Crime No.115 of 2010 was registered. The applicant claimed a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. AWs.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of applicant, Exs.A1 to A9 were marked for applicant, RW.1 for opposite parties. Commissioner, after considering the evidence on record and exhibits marked, awarded a compensation of Rs.6,86,633/- with interest @ 12% per annum from

19.01.2011 till depositing the compensation amount.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for appellants/opposite parties (Electricity Department) submitted that applicant was not an employee and there was no employer-employee relationship and Commissioner erred in concluding that there was an employer-employee relationship. It is further submitted that the criminal case registered was compromised in Lok Adalat, and as per the agreement, Mr. Neelsingh paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the applicant. It is submitted that department officials paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on humanitarian grounds to the applicant. It is pointed out that fact of receiving the amounts of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- from the department officials and from the employee was suppressed by the applicant.

6. It is submitted that manning, maintenance of Sub- Station at Sangam and Mirjapur in the Operation Circle of Nizamabad, was extended in favour of the contractor i.e., A. Naveen, M/s. Sri Balaji Electrical and Civil Works and the applicant was working under the contractor and therefore non-joinder of contractor, a necessary party, makes the claim petition not maintainable under law. It is further submitted that as per the conditions of agreement between the department and the contractor, it is the contractor, who is liable to pay compensation and not the department. Learned Standing Counsel contended that the applicant was unauthorisedly working at the time of accident, though his work is confined only to operate 33/11 KV Sub-Station. It is lastly urged that the Commissioner erred in concluding that the department is liable to pay compensation amount.

7. Heard learned Standing Counsel for appellants and perused the record.

8. It is not in dispute that on 18.10.2010 at 11:30 A.M., on instructions of Lineman, the applicant, a contract worker, climbed the electric pole to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top