GOPICHAND Vs. SUKHDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal under Section 30 of the Employee 's Compensation Act, 1923, impugns the judgment of the Commissioner dated 25.11.2011 which has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents herein (applicants before the Commissioner). The appellants no. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 are the legal heirs of the respondent no.1 before the Commissioner -Sh. Gopi Chand, and who were substituted in place of Gopi Chand during the pendency of the proceedings before the Commissioner. The appellant no.4 Ashok Kumar, son of Gopi Chand, was already the respondent no.2 before the Commissioner.

(2.) THE case set up by respondents before the Commissioner was that the deceased Sohan Lal was employed as a mason(Raj Mistri) by the appellants. It is stated that on 04.03.1996 while the deceased Sohan Lal was on duty, he met with an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and died due to electrocution as the accident site was not managed properly. An FIR No. 181/1996 was registered under Section 304A IPC with Police Station Janak Puri, New Delhi. The respondents had sent a notice for claim of compensation to which there was no response and hence the claim petition was filed.

(3.) THE Commissioner has, while dealing with issue no.1, held that no documents were filed by the appellants herein that the deceased Sh. Sohan Lal was employed by them through the Contractor. It is also held by the Commissioner by referring to the FIR that the criminal case under Section 304A IPC was registered against Gopi Chand father of the present appellants. The criminal case had abated on account of death of Gopi Chand. The Commissioner has then referred to the various documents in the criminal case which showed that the deceased Sohan Lal was employed as Raj Mistri on the construction site of the appellants. The relevant observations made by the Commissioner read as under: -