MOONISH AHMED Vs. HALIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARGUMENTS in this case were concluded on 19.5.2014 when counsel for the appellant sought time to take instructions if the matter can be settled. Counsel for the appellant states that appellant is willing only to pay the compensation amount and not the interest under Section 4 -A of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 as directed in the impugned judgment. The case was adjourned because if the impugned judgment is sustained, appellant will also in addition to the total amount as directed by the impugned judgment may have to pay 50% penalty amount in view of Section 4 -A. Since the appellant is not agreeable to pay the total amount under the impugned judgment, this appeal is being decided on merits.

(2.) THIS first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 by the employer impugning the judgment of the Commissioner by which the claim petition filed by the respondent no.1 herein was allowed.

(3.) THE appellant filed his written statement denying the relationship of employer and employee. He also denied that any construction activities were being carried out by him in the site in question where respondent met with an accident being at Imam Ale Hadiz Masjid, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi. Appellant states that actually the husband of the respondent used to work with the appellant on occasions as mason and used to be paid the wages accordingly. It was pleaded that the husband of the respondent Sh. Usman approached him for a loan as he was in need of money and therefore, the appellant paid a sum of Rs.30,000/ - as loan on 8.4.2007, and therefore, the respondent was not correct in stating that the amount of Rs.30,000/ - was given as compensation towards her injuries.