AMIT ENTERPRISES Vs. RAMAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant appeal filed under Sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act'), challenge has been laid to the orders dtd. 19/11/2011 and 28/11/2011, passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, Court No.2, Nalagarh, District Solan, HP, in Claim Petition No.9/2 of 2011/07, titled Ramawati and ors. Vs. Amit Enterprises and anr., whereby the claim petition filed by respondents No.1 to 4/ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) under Ss. 21 and 22 of the Act, for grant of compensation on account of death of Satish Kumar, who was husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 to 4, in an accident, was allowed and they were held entitled for compensation of Rs.2,44,024.00, which of was to be paid by respondent No.1/ (appellant herein), alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 30/7/2007 till deposit of the entire compensation amount. In addition, the petitioners were also held entitled to a sum of Rs.36,504.00 ( 15% of compensation amount) as penalty.

(2.) Precisely the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that Satish Kumar was a workman allegedly employed by respondent No.1 (appellant herein) as helper, who had taken a contract from respondent No.2 (respondent No.5 herein). On 30/6/2007, Satish Kumar received a fatal electric shock while performing his duties, which resulted into his death.

(3.) The aforesaid claim put-forth by the petitioner, came to be resisted by the respondents by way of filing separate replies. In its reply, respondent No.1 (appellant herein), raised preliminary objections qua maintainability, jurisdiction and that the claim petition is hit by provisions of Sec. 75, Sub-Ss. 2(b) and (3) of the Employees State Insurance Act. On merits, it was averred that the deceased was not its employee and it had no concern with him. It was further averred that the petition was filed just to extract money from respondent No.1 and since the deceased was not its employee, therefore, there was no question of paying the compensation.