DURGA CABLE NETWORK Vs. SUNITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the compensation order dated 12.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation awarding Rs.8,61,120/- alongwith interest @ of 12% per annum, with effect from 29.06.2016, on account of death of one Mr. Prakash Bhura the workman. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.06.2016, the deceased, son of the respondent met with an accident while he had gone for connecting a cable wire on the third floor of the property bearing E- 57/A157, Sunder Nagari, Delhi. A newspaper report was published on 30.06.2016 stating that the deceased worked in some shop situated in Sunder Nagri, Delhi, but the appellant claims that it did not have any shop in the said area. In the registered First Information Report, the name of the appellant/employer was mentioned. Apropos the death of the deceased, a complaint was lodged by the Centre for Human Rights on 16.10.2016. On 24.10.2016, summons were issued against the police officials for filing of the Employees Accident Report (EAR) and for compliance of the judgment dated 28.10.2015 passed in FAO No. 385 of 2013. The date for the same was fixed for 09.11.2016. Neither any EAR nor any charge sheet was filed against the appellantemployer on the said date. Summons were issued to the appellant-employer by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation on 27.12.2016. In his reply, the appellant-employer stated that: i) the deceased was not working as his employee and that there was never any employer-employee relationship between them; ii) that the appellant was not situated in the Sunder Nagri area where the unfortunate incident had taken place; iii) that since the appellant's name is neither mentioned in the FIR nor in the newspaper publication, and since none of the legal heirs of the deceased approached a court of law apropos the accident or under any claim for medical treatment or compensation, it clearly proved no employer-employee relationship ever existed between them.

(2.) On the issue of whether the deceased-Prakash died due to injury sustained by him during the course and out of employment with the respondent?, the impugned order reasoned as under:-

(3.) In the context of the said reasoning and appreciation of the evidence, the appellant has not been able to show any error in the impugned order apropos the conclusion of: i) employer-employee relationship, ii) the fatal injury suffered by the deceased during discharge of his duties in the employment, iii) his age, iv) the taking over of the body of the deceased by Sarvesh Kumar another employee of the appellant, v) the unshaken testimony of Ms. Angoori that the deceased used to attend to the cable connection faults on behalf of the appellant, vi) the undertaking of Nanhe, the appellant's Manager, that he will bear all expenses of the marriage of the three daughters of deceased-Prakash, and vii) the attendance register and its copies.