FAO 20/2022

1

$~38

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 28.01.2022

+

FAO 20/2022 & CM. APPLS. 4856-57/2022, 4972/2022

ANIL BHARDWAJ AND ANR

..... Appellants

versus

VIMLA DEVI AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellants:

Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents:

Mr. Surya Prakash Mishra, Advocate.

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1.

The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

2.

Appellants impugn award dated 11.11.2021, whereby the claim

petition filed by respondents under the Employee’s Compensation

Act, 1923 has been allowed and compensation awarded.

3.

The claim petition was filed by the wife, children and mother of

the deceased contending that the deceased was working as an

electrician in the appellant farmhouse for about 15 years and was

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000340

FAO 20/2022

2

earning about Rs.36,000/- per month. Claimants contended that the

appellant had even provided residential accommodation to the

deceased and the claimants and they were residing in the farmhouse.

4.

As per the claim petition, on 11.09.2017 at about 11 A.M., one

Mr. Yograj, Manager of the farmhouse directed the deceased and

another person, Mr. Pramod to cut a Pipal tree.

5.

The deceased and Mr. Pramod inspected the location, where

high-tension wires were going upon the tree and above the farms

house. It is contended that the deceased denied to cut the tree but the

Manager forced him to cut the tree.

6.

When the deceased was cutting the tree, he got electrocuted on

account of high-tension electric cables which were going above the

farmhouse and received grievous injuries due electric shock.

7.

The defence taken by the appellants in the written statement

was that there was no relationship of employer and employee between

the deceased and the appellants and that he was never employed by

them. It was also contended that there was no proof of salary of

Rs.36,000/- per month filed by the claimants.

8.

The Commissioner held that there was relationship of employer

and employee that the death occurred during the course of

employment and accordingly allowed the claim petition.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000340

FAO 20/2022

3

9.

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased

was not working for the appellants, but he was working on contract

basis with various contractors, who would hire the farmhouse for

hosting parties and marriage functions.

10.

It is further contended that the deceased was not residing in the

farmhouse and the alleged Aadhaar Card relied on by the claimants

was prepared later and the deceased was a permanent resident of Rai

Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh.

11.

The Commissioner, on the issue of relationship, has noticed that

the claimants had produced on record the Aadhaar Card of the

deceased (Ex.PW-1/A), bank passbook of the deceased (Ex.PW-1/B)

and the birth certificates (Ex. PW-1/C) of the minor children of the

deceased. All the documents bear the address of Bhartiyam

Farmhouse, i.e. the appellant.

12.

The Commissioner has noticed that all these documents have

been issued by different departments mentioning the same address of

the appellants’ farmhouse.

13.

Perusal of the bank passbook shows that the account was

opened sometime in the year 2011, whereas the accident had taken

place on 11.09.2017.

14.

Commissioner has held that the documents i.e., MLC, FIR,

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000340

FAO 20/2022

4

death certificate, post-mortem report, status report filed by the

Investigating Officer before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Aadhaar

Card, bank passbook and birth certificates of the children of the

deceased clearly established that the deceased was employ