Advocates:
['MUNDADA VINODKUMAR R', 'VENJANE TUKARAM M', '', 'ASHWIN V HON']

- 1 -

fa1124.20.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1124 OF 2020

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Appellant

Versus

Shaikh Hasina Sharfuddin & others

Respondents

Mr. V.R. Mundada, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vikrant Valse, Advocate holding for Mr. T.M. Venjane, Advocate for

respondent No. 1.

Mr. V.D. Hon, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. Ashwin V. Hon,

Advocate for respondent No. 2.

CORAM : M.G. Sewlikar, J.

RESERVED ON : 18^th February, 2021.

PRONOUNCED ON : 5^th March, 2021.

PER COURT :

1.

Heard both the sides at admission stage.

2.

This appeal is preferred by original Respondent No. 4, the

insurance company, under section 30 of the Employee’s

Compensation Act, against the judgement and order passed by the

learned Commissioner, Latur, in Application (W. C. A.) No. 14/2014

whereby the application was partly allowed.

- 2 -

fa1124.20.odt

3.

Facts giving rise to this appeal can be stated in brief as

under:-

The original Applicant, Respondent No. 1 herein, is the

wife of the deceased Sharfuddin Shaikh. The deceased Sharfuddin

Shaikh was working as a labour with Respondents No. 2 to 4. He was

getting salary of Rs. 15,000/– per month. Respondent No. 1 had

issued a tender for the construction of washrooms. Respondent No. 3

filled the tender. Since Respondent No. 3 had qduoted minimum price,

contract was issued to respondent No. 3. The deceased was engaged

on the construction of washroom as a labour. When the deceased

was working on the site of construction, a wall collapsed over the

deceased, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. The

deceased was shifted to Sasoon Hospital, Pune but was declared

dead. Post-mortem was conducted and the incident was reported to

the police station. The original Applicant-respondent No. 1 herein

learned that the original respondents No. 2 and 3 had insured the

workers working on the site of construction. Therefore, compensation

was claimed from the Respondents. Respondents refused to pay the

compensation, therefore, the Appellant has preferred this claim.

- 3 -

fa1124.20.odt

4.

Respondent No. 2 herein Municipal Corporation filed its

written statement at Exhibit CA – 4. It has contended that

Respondent No. 3 herein was allotted the work of construction of

washrooms. Responndent No. 2 was informed about taking

workmens compensation policy. The deceased worked for 2 – 3 days.

The deceased was getting daily wages of Rs. 158.33/-. Since

Respondent No. 2 was allotted the work of construction of washroom,

respondent No. 1 is not liable to pay compensation to the Applicant/

Respondent No. 1.

5.

Respondents No. 3 and 4 filed their written statement at

Exhibit CB–3. They contended that respondent No. 3 was executing

the work through daily labourers. They had appointed one Shri

Dhotre, the labour contractor, to supply the labour. Therefore, they

were unaware about the deceased working at the site of the

construction. The incident occurred because of the negligence of

labour contractor. Therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation

to the Applicant.

6.

Respondent No. 4 (the Appellant herein) filed its written

statement at Exhibit CD – 5. Respondent No. 4 contended that the

- 4 -

fa1124.20.odt

deceased was working under the employment of respondent No. 3.

There was no employer-employee relationship between respondent No.

4 and the deceased. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to

pay compensation to the Applicant/Respondent No. 1.

7.

The learned Commissioner framed issues below Exhibit

O–7. The learned Commissioner hold that the deceased died of an

injury in an accident happened on the 21^st May, 2013, arising out of

and in the course of his employment with Respondents No. 2 and 3.

He further held that the age of the deceased at the time of the

accident was 50 years and he was drawing wages of Rs. 6,500/– per

month. Accordingly, he awarded compensation