High Court
Legal Reasoning
918-FA-1517-191 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO.1517 OF 2019Shradha Electrical Engineering CompanyNanded. Through its ProprietorShri Amit S/o Pandharinath Kanthewad,Age : Major, Occu: Business,R/o. Vidut Bhavan, New Mondha,Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.… Appellant(Orig. Resp. No.2)VERSUS1. Mahanandabai Wd/o Narayan Aaher Age: 35 years, Occu: Household, R/o. Ajar Sonda, Post: Jawala, Tq. Aundhanagnath, Dist. Hingoli.2. Shrikrishna S/o Narayan Aaher Age: 18 years, Occu: Education, R/o. Ajar Sonda, Post: Jawala, Tq. Aundhanagnath, Dist. Hingoli3. Radha D/o Narayan Aaher Age: 18 years, Occu: Household, R/o. Ajar Sonda, Post: Jawala, Tq. Aundhanagnath, Dist. Hingoli4. Madthrubai W/o Rangnath Aaher Age: 70 years, Occu: Household, R/o. Ajar Sonda, Post: Jawale, Tq. Aundhanagnath, Dist. Hingoli… Respondents(Orig. Claimants)5. Shradha Electrical Engineer, Through its Proprietor- Maroti S/o Ganpatrao Kanthewade, Age: Major, Occu.: Business R/o. Vidut Bhavan, New Mondha, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. … Orig. Resp. No.1......Mr. Ganesh P. Shinde, Advocate for AppellantMr. Ashutosh S. Kulkarni Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4...... S.P. Rane 1 of 8 918-FA-1517-192 [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] DATE : 28th AUGUST, 2024 ORDER :1.Heard. This appeal is taken up for final hearing atadmission stage with consent of the parties.2.This appeal filed under Section 30 of EmployeesCompensation Act (for short, ‘the said Act’), challenges thejudgment and award dated 10.08.2016 passed by learnedEx-Officio Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation andCivil Judge, Senior Division, Hingoli in F.A. No.10 of 2011.3.Respondents/claimants No.1 to 4 filed claimcontending that Narayan Aaher was employee of ShradhaElectrical Engineering through proprietor Maroti S/o.Ganpatrao Kanthewad and Shradha Electrical EngineeringCompany, Nanded through proprietor Amit S/o. PandharinathKanthewad at monthly salary of Rs.6,000/-. Both theengineering companies used to undertake to do the work ofelectricity transmission lines on the poles on behalf ofMaharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company. Narayanwas engaged for digging and fixing cement poles and installingelectricity transmission of it. On 19.01.2011, while doing thesaid work in the course of his duty, in the agricultural field ofS.P. Rane 2 of 8 918-FA-1517-193 Ganpatrao S/o Naroji Jamdade at Raiwadi, Taluka Basmat, atabout 10.30 p.m., Narayan had climbed the cement pole,which broke down and he failed down and died on the spot. Atthe time of death, he was 43 years old. Case of accidentaldeath of deceased Narayan was registered at Hatta PoliceStation. Though compensation was demanded from both thecompanies, they failed to pay it. Hence, claimants claimedcompensation of Rs.5,26,620/- along with 12% interest andpenalty. Learned Commissioner, after recording the evidence,partly allowed the claim only against RespondentNo.2/Shradha Electrical Engineering Company, Nandedthrough its proprietor/owner Amit S/o PandharinathKanthewad and directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,26,620/-along with 12% interest. Penalty of Rs.5,000/- is also imposedon the second respondent/appellant. Being aggrieved by thesaid award, appellant has filed the present appeal. 4.Heard learned advocate for appellant and learnedadvocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Though served, noneappears for respondent No.5. 5.Learned advocate for appellant assailed theimpugned judgment and award contending that learnedCommissioner has misread and misconstrued the evidence onS.P. Rane 3 of 8 918-FA-1517-194 record and has ignored the letter dated 12.04.2016 (Article‘B’) placed before it, by which it was informed to the appellantthat, when Assistant Engineer Hatta has visited the work donein the field of Ganpatrao Naroji Jamdade of agricultural pumpconnection and erection of three cement poles and wiring, thesaid work was not done by the appellant. He submits thatnecessary documents were placed on record to indicate thatappellant was asked not to do the said work as there was nosanction of Divisional Office. He therefore submits that thework wherein accident has occurred and deceased has expiredby falling from the electricity pole was not done by theappellant, and therefore, appellant is not liable to paycompensation to the claimants. Further submission is, age ofthe deceased is not proved in spite of that learnedcommissioner has erroneously held that deceased was 43years of age. In the cross-examination of PW-1/wife ofdeceased has admitted that she is 32 years old and deceasedwas 10 years older than her. This is the only evidence onwhich the age of deceased is held as 43 years. Therefore, hesubmits that claimants have failed to prove the age ofdeceased, and therefore, appeal deserves to be allowed andthe impugned judgment and award is liable to be quashed andset aside. S.P. Rane 4 of 8 918-FA-1517-195 6.Per contra, learned advocate for claimants supportedthe impugned judgment and award. He submits that in termsof section 30 of the said Act, appellant has failed to raise anysubstantial question of law in this first appeal, and therefore,the first appeal is not liable to be entertained on this groundalone. By relying on observations of learned Commissioner, hesubmits that on the date of issuance of letter dated12.04.2016 (Article ‘B’), the accident has taken place in whichdeceased has expired. For the accident, FIR was lodgedagainst the appellant and subsequently charge-sheet is alsofiled. Therefore, he submits that claimant No.1 has dischargedpreliminary burden proving that the death is caused whiledeceased was in the employment of appellant. He submits thatthere is no merit in the appeal and appeal is liable to bedismissed.7.Heard learned advocate for appellant and learnedadvocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4, at length. Perused therecord. 8.At the outset, it is required to be noted that there isno substantial question of law is framed by the appellant in theappeal memo nor any substantial question of law was arguedat the time of hearing. S.P. Rane 5 of 8
Legal Reasoning
918-FA-1517-196 9.There is no merit in the contention of appellant thatin view of letter dated 12.04.2016 (Article ‘B’), appellant hasnot done work in the field of Ganpatrao Naroji Jamdade. Thesaid letter is addressed to appellant by Deputy ExecutiveEngineer, M.S.E.D.C.L., Sub Division, Vasmath, wherein it isstated that appellant was given work order to carry out thework of agriculture pump connection and three cement polesand wiring work in the field of Ganpatrao Naroji Jamdade. Thesaid work is seen by Assistant Engineer Hatta and the same isnot done by Shradha Electrical Engineering Company, Nanded.This letter does not state the date on which Assistant Engineervisited the agricultural field of Ganpatrao Naroji Jamdade andon what basis he has come to conclusion that the said work isnot done by the appellant. 10.Appellant has strongly relied on Exhibits 44 and 45.Exhibit-44 is a letter issued by Executive Engineer,M.S.E.D.C.L., Sub Division, Vasmath to the appellant on25.01.2011. It is stated that as per reference No.1, work orderis issued, consumers whose estimates are not sanctioned,their estimates are forwarded to Division Office for approval.Hence, till approval to the estimates is received, theseconsumers’ work should not be done.S.P. Rane 6 of 8 918-FA-1517-197 This letter appears to have been issued at theinstance of the appellant. It does not have outward number. Itis not clear as to when the appellant has received this letter.11.By Exhibit-45/letter dated 24.01.2011, appellant hasinformed the Assistant Engineer, Vasmat Sub Division thatsince no estimate numbers are mentioned in the work order atSr. Nos.3 to 8, these works may be deleted from the workorder. This letter also does not have outward number. 12.It is a matter of record that accident has taken placeon 29.01.2011 and accidental death No.4/2011 is registeredunder section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at theinstance of respondent No.1/claimant (wife of deceased). Spotpanchanama and post-mortem of the deceased conducted bypolice supports the contentions of claimant. On a query made by this Court, learned advocate forappellant has fairly submitted that appellant was prosecutedunder section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code in respect ofaccidental death of the deceased. Learned Commissioner, onthe basis of material placed on record, has held that the workorder (Exhibit-35) coupled with police investigation regardingaccidental death of Narayan Aaher clearly shows that deceasedhad died in accidental death, while doing labour work forS.P. Rane 7 of 8 918-FA-1517-198 respondent No.2/Shradha Electrical Engineer, Nanded. Unlessdirected by respondent No.2, the deceased would not havedone the work of erecting cement poles and lying electriccables. 13.So far as argument in respect of age of deceased isconcerned, post-mortem report (Exhibit-27) mentions age ofthe deceased as 35 years, whereas learned commissioner hasconsidered his age as 43 years in view of admission given byclaimant no.1 in her cross-examination that she is 32 years oldand deceased was 10 years older than her. No fault can befound with the said finding recorded by the learnedCommissioner. 14.In the light of aforestated reasons and as there is nosubstantial question of law involved in the present first appeal,the same is dismissed.15.Appellant shall deposit the amount of interest beforethe learned Commissioner within 12 weeks from the date ofuploading of this order. 16.Amount of compensation deposited by the appellantbe paid to the claimants along with accrued interest thereon. [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE S.P. Rane 8 of 8