KALI RAM Vs. RAJ KALI
LAWS(P&H)-2016-3-110
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on March 30,2016

KALI RAM Appellant
VERSUS
Raj Kali Respondents

JUDGEMENT

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,J. - (1.)Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 14.01.2016, passed by the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation Act, Circle Karnal, vide which, the claim application moved by the respondents, who were mother and father of deceased -Karam Singh, claiming compensation on the basis of the death of their son, which took place on 16.04.2004 while working as a mason in the house of the appellant, where he came in contact with the electric wire of high voltage i.e. 11000 voltage, which resulted in shock and he fell down from the second floor of the house suffering burn injuries and physical injuries in the process and died, has been accepted and the compensation as assessed come to Rs.4,84,997/ -.
(2.)It is contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner has failed to appreciate that there was no employer - employee relationship between the appellant and the deceased -Karam Singh. He contends that Karam Singh was never engaged by the appellant, rather, one contractor, namely, Jai Chand @ Billu, might have engaged deceased -Karam Singh. However, he could not dispute the fact that the deceased -Karam Singh died while working in the house of the appellant and suffered burn injuries because of electric shock which he suffered on coming into contact with high voltage wire and fall from the second floor. The counsel has further asserted that Karam Singh was under training with the contractor Jai Chand, therefore, he cannot be said to be an employee of the appellant. That apart, he asserts that as per the proceedings initiated under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and statements recorded on the spot, there was no fault of anyone and it was merely an accident which had taken place. He, thus, contends that there being no negligence on the part of the appellant and in fact, it was the negligence of the deceased -Karam Singh himself, therefore, no compensation can be granted to the respondent -claimants. He further asserts that UHBVN has not been impleaded as a party in the claim application and therefore, the same itself is not maintainable because the accident which had taken place, occurred because of the high voltage electricity wire which was running 2 to 3 feet away from the house of the appellant. The impugned order, thus, cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside.
(3.)I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and with his able assistance, have gone through the impugned order but do not find myself in agreement with his submissions.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.