SUBRATO CHAUDHARY Vs. DINESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 impugning the judgment of the Commissioner dated 31.10.2013, by which the Commissioner has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent no.1 herein. Respondent no.1 is the widow of late Sh. Dinesh Kumar, and who died in an accident at the time of doing repairs/construction in the building which was owned by the appellant (respondent no.2 before the Commissioner).

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the Sh. Dinesh Kumar was employed as a mason (Raj Mistri) by respondent no.2 herein/contractor (respondent no.1 before the Commissioner). The contractor -respondent no.2 was appointed by the appellant herein for making repairs/construction to the building of the appellant situated at A -5B/150, Shanti Kunj Apartment, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. On 9.5.2011 at about 4.00 PM when the deceased Dinesh Kumar was working on the building, the scaffolding on which the deceased Dinesh Kumar was working collapsed /broke, and Dinesh Kumar fell down from the third floor. Sh. Dinesh Kumar consequently suffered grievous injuries. An FIR was registered with the police station being FIR No. 198/2011 on 1.7.2011. Though Dinesh Kumar was discharged from the hospital on 6.6.2011, however, ultimately Dinesh Kumar died as a result of injuries suffered on account of the accident.

(3.) A reading of the aforesaid paras show that the Commissioner has applied Section 12 of the Act and as per which provision an owner of a building who appoints a contractor is made liable for any injuries caused in an accident to an employee of the contractor, of course with the simultaneous right to the employer to seek indemnification from the contractor. In the present case, since the appellant was the owner of the building, he would be a principal as per Section 12 of the Act, and the contractor who was appointed by the appellant i.e respondent no.2 herein, would be liable to indemnify the appellant once the appellant pays the amount to the respondent no.1 in terms of the impugned judgment. I do not agree with the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not liable as per Section 12 of the Act.