PAVAYEE Vs. ASSISTANT ENGINEER OPERATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE allegations found in the Claim Petition may succinctly be stated as follows: on 6. 9. 2000, at about 13. 00 hours one Murugan, son of the applicants was working in an electrical post in Nallakumarapalayam and met with a fatal accident. After the accident, he was admitted to the Government Hospital at Namakkal and then he was referred to Salem Government Hospital for further treatment. On the way to Salem he died. The accident arose out of and in the course of his employment under the first opposite party. He was employed as a contract labourer by the first opposite party for about four years. A case in Crime No. 172/2000 under Section 174 I. P. C. , was registered on the file of Velagoundanpatti police station and the post-mortem report shows that he died due to electric shock. He was aged only 23 years at the time of his death. He was the only son of the applicants. He was paid Rs. 75/- per day and was earning more than Rs. 2,250/- per month. He was in the list as the contract labourer and he was the first person to be made permanent when vacancy arises and he would get more than Rs. 3,000/- per month. Notice of the accident was not served on the opposite party since the first opposite party himself gave a complaint before the police station. He has knowledge about the accident and death of Murugan. Hence, the compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- is prayed for.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the first opposite party it is stated that it is true that Murugan was contract labourer attending work such as excavation of pits, erection of electrical posts and dragging of line etc at Manickampalayam (Oandm) Section for the past four years. The accident is admitted but it is denied that it occurred during the course of employment on 6. 9. 2000. The first respondent did not allot any work to Murugan since he had gone to Tiruchengode, O and M Rural Section before 8. 00 a. m. for attending mass raid and only after hearing of the accident he went to Namakkal Government Hospital and saw the condition of Murugan. On that day, he did not go to Manickampalayam area. It is understood that the deceased climbed the electrical post in front of the house to rectify the street light on his own accord for lighting the area in front of his house and he was not at all engaged for doing any work on that day. It is not true to say that Murugan died due to electrical shock. In the post-mortem report it is mentioned that he died due to mechanical injuries. It is also not admitted that he was paid Rs. 75/- per day. He was not at all engaged on that day for doing departmental work. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed.

(3.) CONSIDERING the documentary piece of evidence and the oral evidence on record the Deputy Commissioner of Labour VII, Salem dismissed the application under an observation that Murugan did not die in the course of or out of employment. It is admitted fact that the deceased was a contract labourer under the first respondent. But it is the definite and specific case of the first respondent that on 6. 9. 2000 he did not allot any work to Murugan to be attended for the department and he was not at all present in Nallakumarapalayam village but he had gone to Tiruchengode area for attending mass raid. It is further stated by the first respondent that the deceased climbed the electrical post in front of his house to attend some repairs in order to make the light to burn. In this regard, the second applicant, the father of the deceased would say that the electric post is situated in front of her house which is 30 feet far away from his house. He climbed the electric post for repair. In the cross-examination, he has further added that he executed the said work under the instruction of wireman. It is stated by the first respondent that the work allotted to the contract labourers are, excavating pits and to erect the poles. Even though it is not specifically mentioned on behalf of the respondents that checking the electric posts nor make good the disconnection, certainly it is the work of a wireman. It is pertinent to state that the petition is silent in this regard, that is to say, Murugan climbed on the electric post under the instruction of a wireman. Further, P. W. 1 has not stated in his chief-examination about this aspect. Even he has not mentioned the name of the wireman in his evidence.