Smt Jayalakshmi Vs Balachandran @ Balasubramani N

BALACHANDRAN @ BALASUBRAMANI .N, S/O B.M. ASWATH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ORDER OF SITE AND BUILDING NO.106/1, 7^TH LINK CROSS ROAD, CHOWLARAPALYA, VIJAYANAGAR WARD NO.123,

¶20

2 -

¶21

MFA No.6751 of 2016

¶22

BENGALURU-560 023.

¶23

GOVINDRAJU, S/O PACHAPPA, MAJOR, BUILDING CONTRACTOR, NO.86, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, CHOLURUPALAYA, VIJAYANAGAR WARD NO.123, BENGALURU-560 023.

¶24

NAGARAJ, MAJOR, MESTRI BUILDING UNDER GOVINDARAJU, NO.86, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, CHOLURUPALAYA, VIJAYANAGAR WARD NO.123, BENGALURU-560 023.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. VENKATARAMANA K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. G. PANDURANGA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶27

THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:21.04.2016 PASSED ON ECA NO.273/14 ON THE FILE OF THE 9^TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶28

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 17.09.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶30

3 -

¶31

MFA No.6751 of 2016

¶32

CAV JUDGMENT

¶33

This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 21.04.2016 passed by the IX Additional Small Causes and Additional MACT, Bangalore, in MVC No.273 of 2014.

¶34

One Krishnamurthy @ Krishnappa fell down on 27.04.2012 from the second floor of building of respondent No.1, which was under construction, and died. His wife and children filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, granted Rs.5,90,600/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 27.05.2012 till payment from respondent Nos.1 to 3 equally. It was further directed that respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall deposit their respective shares of compensation and interest before the Tribunal.

¶35

Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the claimants in which it is contended that, at the behest of respondent Nos.1, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have helped him in building his house and they have taken services of the deceased Krishnamurthy @ Krishnappa. As such, all of them are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and not

¶36

4 -

¶37

MFA No.6751 of 2016

¶38

separately, as directed by the Tribunal. Thus, requested for modification of the impugned order.

¶39

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both

¶40

sides.

¶41

This Court, on 26.06.2025, framed the substantial

¶42

question of law, which reads as follows :

¶43

“1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in directing each respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay compensation in equal proportion rather than holding them jointly and severally?”

¶44

Respondent No.1 is the owner of the building under construction. Respondent No.2 is the supplier of the building material and respondent No.3 is the contractor. The deceased Krishnamurthy @ Krishnappa was working as a centring work labourer. The Tribunal observed that the respondents failed to provide precautionary measures to the deceased at the workplace, and as a result, he sustained severe head injury and succumbed to the injuries and accordingly, directed respondent Nos.1 to 3 equally liable to pay the compensation.

¶45

Learned counsel for appellants has relied upon the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Lakshmi

¶46

5 -

¶47

MFA No.6751 of 2016

¶48

and others Vs. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation in MFA

¶49

No.7464 of 2019 decided on 23.08.2025, wherein the Co-

¶50

ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:

¶51

With regard to the aspect of liability, it is necessary to notice Section 12 of the Act which reads as follows:

¶52

“12. Contracting.- (1) Where any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the principal) in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any *[employee] employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that *[employee] had been immediately employed by him; and where compensation is claimed from the principal, this Act shall apply as if references to the principal were substituted for references to the employer except that the amount of compensation shall be calculated with reference to the wages of the *[employee] under the employer by whom he is immediately employed.

¶53

(2) Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor, [or any other person from whom the *[employee] could have recovered compensation and where a contractor who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to indemnify a principal under this section he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing to him in the relation of a contractor from whom the *[employee] could have recovered compensation] and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner.

¶54

(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a *[an employee] from recovering

¶55

6 -

¶56

MFA No.6751 of 2016

¶57

compensation from the contractor instead of the principal.

¶58

(4) This section shall not apply in any case where the accident occurred elsewhere that on, in or about the premises on which the principal has undertaken or usually undertakes, as the case may be, to execute the work or which are otherwise under his control or management.”

¶59

A co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri.Krishan vs. Jasoda Devi¹ , while noticing the liability of a principal under Section 12 of the Act, as also considering the interpretation of the words ”Trade” and a “Business”, after noticing various judgments in that regard has held as follows:

¶60

43. Summary of Principles

¶61

43.1. The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is a piece of social beneficial legislation and its provisions have to be interpreted in a manner so as not to deprive the employees of the benefit of the legislation.

¶62

43.2. The object for enacting the Employees' Compensation Act even as early as 1923 was to ameliorate the hardship of economically poor employees who were exposed to risks in work, or occupational hazards by providing a cheaper and quicker machinery for compensating them with pecuniary benefits.

¶63

43.3. Section 12 safeguards the right to compensation when the employer delegates the work to another person. Section 12 is intended to secure to an employee the right to claim compensation not only against his immediate employer who, in the Act, is referred to as a contractor, but also against the person who had employed such contractor to execute the work. The Act refers to him as the principal.

¶64

1 2017 SCC OnLine Delhi 11137

¶65

7 -

¶66

MFA No.6751 of 2016

¶67

43.4. The main object of enacting Section 12 of the Act is to secure compensation to the employees who have been engaged by the principal employer through the contractor for the work which the principal employer is supposed to carry out by his own employees. If a person substitutes another for himself to do his work, he ought not to escape the liability which would have been imposed upon him, if he had done it himself.

¶68

43.5. XXXX”

¶69

It was further held as under:

¶70

“the Act is a “piece of social beneficial legislation and its provisions have to be interpreted in a manner as not to deprive the employees of the benefit of the legislation.”

¶71

“the object of the Act was ”to ameliorate the hardship of economically poor employees who are exposed to risks in work or occupational hazards………”.

¶72

“Section 12 is intended to secure the employee, the right to claim compensation not only against his immediate employer who, in the Act, is referred to as a contractor but also against the person who had employed such contractor to execute the work”.

¶73

In the case of Smt. Lakshmi , cited supra,

¶74

respondent No.1 is the Metro Station, respondent No.2-Canon Detective and Security Services and respondent No.3-M/s.GYT Coastal JV. The deceased therein was appointed as a security guard to take care of the construction material. He met with an

¶75

8 -

¶76

MFA No.6751 of 2016

¶77

accident in the place and died, Thus, finally, it was directed that respondent No.1-principal employer shall deposit the amount. Further, it was held that respondent No.1-principal employer was at liberty to recover any amount from respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶78

In the present case, the deceased Krishnamurthy @ Krishnappa was on the centring work on the second floor of the building of respondent No.1, which was under construction, and as the respondents failed to take precautionary measures at the workplace, the deceased fell down from the second floor, and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to hold that all the respondents are equally liable for the negligence, but respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the entire amount and he is at liberty to recover the shares of respondent Nos.2 and 3, by due process of law.

¶79