The High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the Commissioner's order awarding compensation to an employee injured in a work-related accident. The Court held the service of summons was valid and dismissed the petition.
The writ petition was dismissed, and the Company-General-Body was directed to pay the compensation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 21st February, 2018
ANAND KUMAR CHAURASIYA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Hari Kishan, Adv. for respondent No.1 along with respondent No.1 in person. Mr. Guatam Narayan, ASC with Mr. R.A. Iyer, Adv. for respondent No.2/GNCTD.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Page 1 of 7
W.P.(C) 3155/2017
went with the vehicle which met with an accident with an unknown truck near Khampur, G.T. Karnal Road, P.S. Alipur; the police registered FIR No.470 dated 12th October, 2013 under Sections 279/337 IPC; respondent No.1 was treated at LNJP Hospital and he has suffered 85% disability.
Page 2 of 7
W.P.(C) 3155/2017
further submitted that the disability of the respondent No.1 is 60% according to Schedule I Part II Serial No.4 of the Employees Compensation Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner, Rohit Malhotra is not the proprietor of Kamla Industries. According to the petitioner, Kamla Industries is the proprietorship firm of his father, A.K. Malhotra who had given the said property on rent to the petitioner and the petitioner is running a proprietorship firm named, Pringle & Company in which the respondent was employed as a helper. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 worked in the night shift on 11th October, 2013 and he left the factory in the morning of 12th October, 2013, which was a Saturday and weekly off for the factory. On 12th October, 2013, the petitioner was informed by some other worker that respondent No.1 suffered an accident at Alipur, G.T. Karnal Road while travelling on tempo whereupon the petitioner directed the staff to give help to the respondent which is stated in the FIR. The petitioner also claimed that he continued to pay salary to respondent No.1 for about two months and continued his employment as a guard whereas respondent No.1 worked with the petitioner for only 10 days and thereafter, respondent No.1 started giving extortion calls and threats to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the owner of the vehicle No.DL-1LL-6070 was not examined to prove that the petitioner had requisitioned the vehicle and respondent No.1 was travelling in the said vehicle on the instructions of the petitioner.
Page 3 of 7
W.P.(C) 3155/2017
Page 4 of 7
W.P.(C) 3155/2017
order to satisfy as to whether the petitioner engaged vehicle No.DL-1LL6070, this Court, vide order dated 3rd August, 2017, issued notice to Mr. Sanjay Gupta, owner of vehicle No.DL-1LL-6070 in which respondent No.1 was travelling at the time of the accident on 12th October, 2016. This Court also requisitioned the record of FIR No.470/2013, P.S. Alipur under Sections 279/337 IPC vide order dated 24th May, 2017. On 22nd September, 2017, ASI Pradeep Kumar from P.S. Alipur produced Mr. Sanjay Gupta, owner of vehicle bearing No. DL-1LL-6070 who stated that his vehicle was requisitioned by petitioner on the date of the accident, the vehicle was driven by his driver, Ranjan and respondent No.1 was travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident.
Page 5 of 7
W.P.(C) 3155/2017
Page 6 of 7
W.P.(C) 3155/2017
to pay Rs.6,50,000/- to the respondent no.1.
FEBRUARY 21, 2018 ak
J.R. MIDHA, J.
Page 7 of 7
W.P.(C) 3155/2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite Section 30 providing an appeal remedy when procedural defaults existed.
Whether the service of summons was valid despite not being sent by registered post, given the employee's (munim) acceptance on instructions.
Rohit Malhotra
Anand Kumar Chaurasiya
J.R. Midha
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
