Dismissed

The Executive Engineer Iph Bilaspur and Another v. Mahima and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Nov 2019FAO/542/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed an appeal filed by the employer under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act. The court rejected the claim that the deceased died of natural causes and upheld the commissioner's award of compensation to the family.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Commissioner's award was upheld; pending applications were disposed of and interim directions vacated.

The Executive Engineer Iph Bilaspur… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

FAO(ECA) No. 542 of 2018 Decided on: November 6, 2019

¶3

_________________________________________________________________ The Executive Engineer I&PH and another ..Appellants

¶4

Versus

¶5

Mahima and others ……….Respondents

¶6

_________________________________________________________________ Coram:

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹ yes.

¶9

_______________________ For the Appellants	________________________ : M/s Sudhir Bhat Sood, Additional with Mr. Kunal Advocate General.	__________________ nagar and Sanjeev Advocates General Thakur, Deputy
For the Respondents	: Mr. Malay Kausha	l, Advocate.

¶10

_________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge :

¶11

Instant appeal filed under S.30 of Employee's Compensation Act is directed against award dated 29.8.216 passed by learned commissioner, Bilaspur, exercising power under Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, ‘Act’) in case No. 8/2 of 2016/06, whereby learned Court below, while allowing claim petition having been filed by respondents-claimants (hereinafter, ‘claimants’) held claimant No.1 entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2,92,400/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 20.1.2005 till realisation of the amount and penalty to the tune of 20% of compensation amount.

¶12

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

¶14

2. For having bird’s eye view of the matter, necessary facts, as emerge from the record are that the claimants filed a petition under S.22 of the Act before learned Court below under, praying therein for compensation to the tune of Rs.5.00 lakh alongwith interest on account of death of late Tulsi Ram. Claimants alleged that deceased workman died during course of employment with the appellant and received injuries due to fall. Deceased was admitted in Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur on 16.12.2004, from where he was referred to PGI Chandigarh and remained admitted as indoor patient from 16.12.2004 to 20.12.2004, but unfortunately, he succumbed to injuries on 20.12.2004. Claimants claimed that since the accident was well within the knowledge of the appellant, there was no need for them to serve notice upon the appellant. Claimants claimed that the deceased was working as a Chowkidar with the I&PH Department and was getting salary to the tune of Rs.6500/- per month at the time of his death. Appellant, while refuting aforesaid claim of the claimants, specifically denied that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him, rather, claimed that he died a natural death due to cardiac arrest. Appellant claimed that as per accident report, deceased had suffered injuries in his left leg on 15.1.2040, as per post-mortem report, cause of death is cardiac arrest, as such, there is no causal connection between death and injuries sustained by deceased, hence, appellant is under no obligation to compensate

¶15

¶16

the legal representatives /dependents. Appellant also denied that deceased was working as a Chowkidar in the Department.

¶17

3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Court below framed following issues:

¶18

“1. Whether the deceased sustained injuries in the course of his employment? .. OPP

¶19

Whether there is any connection between the injury and the cause of death? OPP

¶20

Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act? .. OPP

¶21

Relief.”

¶22

4. Claimants with a view to prove their case, examined as many as three witnesses, whereas, appellant examined one witness i.e. Ram Kumar Vashisht, Assistant Engineer. Learned Court below, on the basis of totality of evidence led on record by respective parties, held claimant No.1, who happened to be wife of deceased, entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2,92,400/-alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum, with effect from 2.1.2005, i.e. one month after the date of death, till realisation of the amount and further imposed penalty to the extent of 20% of the compensation amount, under S.4-3(A).

¶23

5. In the aforesaid background, appellant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, with a prayer to set aside impugned award made by learned Commissioner below.

¶24

¶25

6. Appeal as preferred by the appellant, came to be admitted on 6.12.2018, on the following questions of law:

¶26

“1. Whether the deceased Tulsi Ram being a regular employee was a workman within the meaning and definition as provided under Section 2(dd) and Section 2 (e) of the Employee's Compensation Act.

¶27

Whether the petition was not maintainable before the Ld. Employee's Compensation Commissioner (sic Act) as the deceased Tulsi Ram was a regular employee of the IPH Department and as such, was governed by the service rules applicable to the regular employees of the Department?

¶28

7. Since all the questions of law are interconnected, same are being taken up together to avoid repetition of evidence.

¶29

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned award passed by learned Commissioner below because bare perusal of the same clearly reveals that the learned Commissioner below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and there is no scope left for this court to interfere with the same.

¶30

9. After having gone through the evidence, be it ocular or documentary, led on record by the respective parties, this court finds no force in the argument/submission of Mr. Sanjeev Sood,

¶31

¶32

learned Additional Advocate General that learned Commissioner below has failed to appreciate medical evidence adduced on record by the appellant-Department in support of its contention that deceased died on account of cardiac arrest because, bare perusal of statement having been made by PW-2 Dr. S.K. Sankhyan, Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Bilaspur, clearly suggests that deceased died due to cerebral damage consequent to embolism following blunt trauma to the lower limb and this blunt trauma was possible due to lacerated wound. This witness specifically stated that the embolism which caused brain damage was due to wound and contusion with fracture of femur of left thigh and the deceased died due to injuries as a result of fall about 4 ½ days prior to his death. Cross-examination conducted upon this witness nowhere suggests that the appellant was able to shatter the testimony of this witness, rather, close scrutiny of crossexamination conducted upon this witness clearly suggests that this witness stuck to his statement made in the examination-inchief and his testimony remained totally un-shattered. Similarly, this Court finds no force in the argument of Mr. Sood, learned Additional Advocate General that the deceased was not working as a Chowkidar with the appellant-Department, because, it was none of the case of the appellant before learned Commissioner below ,rather specific case of the appellant before learned Commissioner below was that the workman died natural death due to cardiac

¶33

¶34

arrest and since there is no causal connection between injury sustained by the deceased and his death, appellant-Department is no liable to pay compensation. At no point of time, appellant took a stand before learned Commissioner below that the deceased was not working as a Chowkidar in the Department.

¶35

10. RW-1, Raman Kumar Vashisht, Assistant Engineer, has admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased was working as a Class IV employee i.e. Chowkidar at the time of alleged incident. Moreover, claimants have successfully proved on record that deceased was in receipt of salary of Rs.6433/- per month at the time of alleged incident.

¶36

11. Since there is no dispute, if any, qua the quantum of compensation awarded by learned Commissioner below, there appears to be no necessity for this court to go into that aspect of the mater. Similarly, neither any material has been placed nor any argument has been raised by learned Additional Advocate General qua the issue of awarding penalty under S.4-3(A) of the Act, on account of delay in depositing amount of compensation after death of deceased, as such, this Court is not required to go into that question of the matter also.

¶37

12. Questions of law are answered accordingly.

¶38

13. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above, appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are also vacated.

(Sandeep Sharma)

Judge

November 6, 2019 (vikrant)

The Executive Engineer Iph Bilaspur and Another v. Mahima and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer Iph Bilaspur and Another v. Mahima and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jung Bahadur Singh Bawa Vs Anju Sharma and Another

Sandeep Sharma Vs Narinder Sharma

Harnaam Singh and Another Vs Shrikant Baldi and Others

Jaiwanti Vs State

Bhau Ram Vs Kamla Devi

Ranjeet Singh Vs Yunish Khan and Another