North Delhi Power Ltd. vs Asha Devi and Others

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—The challenge by means of the first appeal u/s 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is to the impugned order dated 22.4.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation awarding a sum of Rs. 1,72,520/- to the widow and the children of the deceased workman Sh. Naresh Kumar, who was working as an employee of the then Delhi Vidhut Board.

The facts of the case are that Sh. Naresh Kumar was admittedly an employee of Delhi Vidhut Board. This was not disputed by Delhi Vidhut Board in the proceedings before the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation. The case as set out by the claimants/Respondents No. 1 to 3 was that Sh. Naresh Kumar, on 8.9.1998, while attending his duties along with his co-workers, had an accident by falling down from an electric pole and was admitted to Ugarsen Hospital at about 8.45 PM. Due to the accident, he could not survive and he died on 10.9.1998.

In a claim, which was filed under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, the basic aspects which are to be seen are with respect to the employment of the deceased and also the fact as to whether the accident arose in and out of the course of employment. So far as employment is concerned, the same was not disputed. So far as the aspect that whether or not an unfortunate accident took place, I may note that the Appellant itself on 9.9.2009, before the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, admitted in so many words with regard to the factum of the accident. I may note that in the appeal filed in this Court it is no where challenged, and nor was challenged before the Commissioner Workmen''s Compensation, that the order dated 9.9.2009 admitting to the factum of the accident has been wrongly recorded. Accordingly, the fact that the accident took place and the workman died in the course of performing his duties is also an admitted fact.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant sought to argue that the Appellant should have been held entitled to lead evidence and reliance is placed upon Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Another, . I really fail to understand the purpose of this argument, inasmuch as, and as already stated above, the factum of the accident was admitted in so many words by the Appellant before the Commissioner Workmen''s Compensation, and as recorded in the order dated 9.9.2009 as stated above and that order is not challenged in appeal even before this Court.

Accordingly, I do not find any error whatsoever in the impugned judgment in this regard to interfere in appeal. The Commissioner Workmen''s Compensation has applied the correct income, correct multiple and has therefore correctly arrived at the compensation which was statutorily awarded to the dependents of the deceased workman. The appeal is therefore without merit and is thus dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Since the main appeal itself has been dismissed, no orders are required to be passed on the pending applications which are disposed of accordingly. Trial court record be sent back.