DINESH VERMA Vs. MUKESH KUMAR & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M.No.30332/2016 (Exemption)

(2.) In proceedings under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, vide impugned order of 26th May, 2016, compensation of Rs. 62,000/- with interest has been granted to respondent-claimant on account of fracture of the left leg. The challenge to the impugned order in this appeal by learned counsel for appellant is on the ground that the relationship of employeremployee is not established and so, appellant is not liable to pay the compensation awarded. To submit so, attention of this Court is drawn to the deposition of respondent-complainant to show that the respondent was working under Jai Kishan, who is respondent No.2 in this appeal. It is pointed out that appellant in his appeal has categorically stated that he does not know respondent No.2-Jai Kishan. Thus, it is submitted that the liability to pay the compensation is of respondent No.2-Jai Kishan and not of appellant and, so impugned order holding appellant and respondent No.2-Jai Kishan jointly and severally liable is unsustainable in law.

(3.) Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and the material on record, I find that no doubt respondent-claimant has stated in the evidence that he was working under respondent No.2, but I find that the cross-examination of respondent-claimant cannot be read out of context as in the Chief Examination, respondent-claimant has unequivocally deposed as under: -