M/S MADRAS TRADING CO vs RAMJEET @ RAMAJEET & ANR

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 19 December 2023
Judgment pronounced on : 13 February 2024
+ FAO 119/2017 & CM APPL. 9580/2017, CM APPL.
28069/2018
M/S MADRAS TRADING CO ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Sr.
Advocate with Ms. Urvi
Mohan, Advocate.
versus
RAMJEET @ RAMAJEET & ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. O.P.
Singh, Mr. Sunil Sharma & Mr.
M.S. Akhtar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
J U D G M E N T

1. This judgement shall decide the present appeal instituted under
Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 read with Order
XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assailing the impugned
order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Employees
Compensation in Claim No. CWC/D/60/15/WD/4219 in favour of the
claimants, awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 8,67,640/- along
with interest @ 12% p.a. payable from 29.07.2015, the date when the
Claim Petition was preferred till realisation.
2. The appellant herein is a proprietorship concern run by Mr.
Sukhpreet Singh, and it is engaged in a small business of sale of air
conditioners and spare parts. On the other hand, the respondents

herein were the claimants before the Employee Commissioner and are
the legal heirs/parents of the deceased

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

3. Briefly stated, the claimants instituted the Statement of Claims
before the Commissioner on 27.07.2015, which has been incorrectly
recorded in the impugned order as 29.07.2015, stating that that their
deceased son Tata, was employed with the appellant as an AC
Mechanic at a monthly wage of Rs. 15,000/-. It has been averred that
on 30.04.2014, Sh. Tata was sent by the appellant to do certain AC
repair work at H. No. l-B/66, 3rd Floor, Single Story, Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi and during the course of doing the repair work, the AC
compressor burst resulting in fatal injuries to him and he died at the
age of 25 years.
4. As a necessary corollary an FIR bearing No. 287/2014 was
registered on 01.05.2014 at P.S. Kirti Nagar, on statement of his co-
worker Sh. Sanjay Kumar that he along with the deceased had gone to
the above-noted address at around 4:00 PM on 30.04.2014, to carry
out work pertaining to filling of gas in the Air Conditioner on the third
floor of the building when the accident occurred and he made a
statement that both of them were employed with the appellant firm.
The claimants sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/-
(Rupees 20 Lacs) along with penalty of 50% of the amount of
compensation sought and interest @12% per annum, payable from the
date of the incident till realization. The claim of compensation was
filed before the Commissioner by the respondents/claimants on
27.07.2015, being the legal heirs of the deceased,

5. The appellant filed its reply to the claim of compensation on
09.12.2015, vehemently denying the „employer-employee” relation
with the deceased, and further placing its objection on the record as to
the non-enclosure of any documents/proofs substantiating on such
employer-employee relationship at the behest of the claimants.
Thereafter, a rejoinder was filed by the respondents on 10.02.2016.
6. On behalf of the claimants, evidence was led by way of filing
an affidavit of Respondent No.1, who was subsequently cross-
examined on 23.05.2016. On the other hand, the appellant led its
evidence through an affidavit of Sh. Sukhpreet Singh, the proprietor of
Madras Trading Corporation, who was thereafter cross examined on
03.06.2016.
7. Following issues were framed by the learned Commissioner:

“(i) Whether the employee – employer relationship exists
between the parties? –
(ii) Whether accident resulting into death of the deceased is
caused out of and during the course of employment and if
so, to what amount of death compensation, the dependents
of the deceased are entitled to?
(iii) Relief, if any?”

8. With regard to Issues No 1 & 2, the learned Commissioner
decided in favor of the claimants/respondents. It was the finding of the
Commissioner that the evidence led by the claimants, in specific the
FIR bearing No. 287/2014, was reliable and sufficient in proving the
events as claimed. Furthermore, it was the view of the learned
Commissioner that the respondent firm (appellant herein), failed to
make good the averment that no employer-employee relation existed
between it and the deceased and was unable to produce any evidence

or document in this respect, which suggested that the deceased was
not employed with it on the day of the accident.
9. The findings of the learned Commissioner are produced
hereinbelow:

“8. As per evidence filed by the claimant by way of affidavit with
documents exhibited as CW-1/1 to CW-1/15, the claimant has
clearly stated that the deceased workman Mr. Tata was son of
claimant and he was working as AC Mechanic with the respondent
and his monthly wages were Rs. 15,000/-. On 30.04.2014 he was
sent by the respondent to repair AC at H. No. 1-8/66, 3rd Floor,
Single Story, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi and he met with an
accident due to blast of AC Compressor and he died. At the time of
accident his ages was 25 years and the compensation of Rs.20
Lakhs with interest & penalty has been claimed. In his cross
examination he has stated that his son was working with the
respondent firm and he met with an accident which was out of and
in course of his employment. The evidence & documents specially
FIR No-287 dated-01.05.2014 full support the claim of the
claimant and proved the claim of events as such the evidence of the
claimant is reliable & accepted.
9. In his evidence, the respondent denied the employment of the
deceased and also denied the accident. However, the respondent
failed to produce any document to show that the deceased was not
employed on the date of accident with them. They, have also not
filed any attendance register, salary register etc. and in absence of.
the documents an adverse inference is drawn that there was
employee-employer relationship between the deceased and the
respondent which also supported by the contents of the FIR, in
which the chain of events leading to death of the deceased
workman clearly mentions that he was working at the accident site
on the direction of the respondent to fill the gas in the compressor
of the AC at H. No. l-B/66, 3rd Floor, Single Story, Ramesh Nager,
New Delhi, when there was compressor blast as a result he died.
The above evidence proves beyond the doubt that they was
employee-employer relationship between the deceased and
respondent and he met with an accident leading to his death which
was out of and in course of his employment with respondent and
accordingly, the Issue no. 1 & 2 are decided in favor of claimants
and against the respondent.”

10. In view of these findings, with respect to Issue No. 3, the
learned Commissioner held the claimants entitled to a compensation
to the tune of Rs. 8,67,640/- along with simple interest @12% per
annum w.e.f. 29.07.2015. Hence, this appeal.

SUBMISSIONS:

11. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned
Commissioner has rendered a perverse finding that there was an
„employer-employee” relation between the deceased and the appellant
firm, based solely on the FIR bearing No. 2867/2014 and has
completely ignored the contradictions in the testimony of the
claimants during cross-examination. It has been submitted that an FIR
is not a piece of substantive evidence and that the same must be
corroborated by material and evidence, documentary, circumstantial or
oral. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgements in
Ram Kumar v. State of M.P.1; Bishan Das v. State of Punjab2;
Podda Narayana v. State of A.P.3; Gurnam Kaur v. Bakshish
Singh4, State of Haryana v. Sher Singh5; State of U.P. v. Ballabh
Das & Ors.6; Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab7; and Baldev Singh
v. State of Punjab8.
12. With respect to „employer-employee” relationship between the
deceased and the appellant firm, it has been submitted that apart from

1 (AIR 1975 SC 126)
2 (AIR 1975 SC 573)
3 (AIR 1975 SC 1252)
4 (AIR 1981 SC 631)
5 (AIR 1981 SC 1021)
6 (AIR 1985 SC 1384)
7 (AIR 1988 SC 628)
8 (1990 4 SCC 692).

the „Control Test”, the „Integration Test” also has to be considered
along with other considerations such as the power of the firm to select
and dismiss, to pay remuneration, deduct insurance contributions as
well as the terms of „mutual obligations” between the employer and
the employee. Further, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant
that a claim for compensation cannot be maintained in case no
material has been produced by the claimant which establishes an
„employer-employee” relation. Moreover, a mere self-serving
testimony is not sufficient to discharge the onus of proving the
existence of an „employer-employee” relationship. In this regard,
reliance has been placed on the judgements in Shantabai Ananda
Jagtap & Anr. v. Jayram Ganpati Jagtap & Anr.9 and Shanti
Sales Corporation v. Mohammad Hassan10. Further, reliance has
also been placed on a decision of this Court in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajender Singh & Anr.11
13. It is further submitted that the only evidence put forth by the
respondents/claimants is a photocopy of the visiting card of the
appellant. Further, the testimony of respondent No.1 as well as his
cross-examination are contradictory and inconsistent. Even the
testimony of Sh. Sanjay Kumar (colleague of the deceased) is fraught
with inconsistencies, wherein he categorically stated that he did not
know the proprietor of the appellant firm, namely Sh. Sukhpreet Singh
and that he was not told by Sh. Sukhpreet Singh to go and carry out
repairs in the AC at the concerned premises where the incident took

9 (Civil Appeal No. 5786/2012)
10 (177 2011 DLT 586)

11 (2017/DHC/6497)

place. Finally, it has been submitted by the appellant, that the
appellant firm is not engaged in the business of AC repair but is
merely a small proprietorship concern engaged in the sale of Air
Conditioners and that the firm has not employed any persons, and
lacks the ability to maintain several documents and registers.
14. A reply dated 07.08.2018 was received on behalf of the
respondents wherein it has been stated that the order passed by the
learned Commissioner is well reasoned and has been passed after a
thorough consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the
materials placed on the record. It has further been stated that the
grounds taken by the appellant in the present appeal are misconceived
and baseless, and that no substantial questions of law arise in the
present matter.
15. It is also apposite to note that although an amicus curiae was
appointed in the present matter, an application was moved on behalf
of the counsel bearing No. 28069/2018 seeking to be relieved from the
matter.

ANALYSIS & DECISION:

16. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced by learned counsels for the rival parties at the Bar. I have
also perused the relevant records of the case including the digitized
Trial Court Record and the case-law cited at the Bar.
17. First things first, it is a well settled proposition in law that an
appeal provided under Section 30 of the EC Act lies to the High Court
from the following orders of a Commissioner, illustrated as under:-

“Section 30 Appeals: (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court
from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely—
(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by
way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or
disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;
(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4-
(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly
payment;
(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among
the dependants of a deceased employee, or disallowing any claim
of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;
(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an
indemnity under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 12”

18. It is further provided by way of a proviso that no appeal lies
against any order unless a „substantial question of law” is involved in
the appeal. In the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation vs. Sujatha,12 the Supreme Court had an occasion to
consider the entire scope and ambit of Section 30 of the EC Act. In the
context of what would constitute a „substantial question of law”, it was
held as under:-

12 (2019) 11 SCC 514

“9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled
principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an
accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of
employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in
what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing
the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee
and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the
employee, how many are the dependants of the deceased employee,
the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries
suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage
obtained by the employer to cover the incident, etc. are some of the
material issues which arise for the just decision of the
Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any
bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and

he/his LRs sue(s) his employer to claim compensation under the
Act.
10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions
of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of
evidence. Once they are proved either way, the findings recorded
thereon are regarded as the findings of fact.”

19. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, without further ado,
reverting to the instant appeal, the learned Commissioner has given a
categorical finding that the deceased workman suffered fatal injuries
during the course of his employment with the appellant. Indeed, CW-1
Ramjit, who was father of the deceased was not an eye witness to the
accident. However, the reliance on the contents of the FIR and
statement of co-worker Sanjay Kumar during the course of
investigation by the learned Commissioner cannot be faulted in law.
It is pertinent to mention that the proceedings under the EC Act are
summary in nature and the strict technicalities of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 cannot be applied in such proceedings.
20. Evidently, the FIR had been recorded soon after the unfortunate
accident and there are grounds to presume that the facts were
truthfully revealed as regards the circumstances that resulted in the
fatal accident and the same were incorporated by the Investigating
Officer acting in the ordinary course of his duties. It must also be
appreciated that that claimants come from an impoverished
background suffering from illiteracy and ignorance. The testimony of
respondent No.1 read as a whole would show that his version that his
son was working with the appellant as he was in possession of a
visiting card, that was placed on the record and unrebutted, is
sufficient to connect or show the nexus of the appellant as an

employer of his deceased son. The evidence led by a party coming
from a weaker section and suffering from an impoverished
background should be appreciated in its totality.
21. In essence, the basic foundation to the claim had been laid forth
by the claimants and the onus then shifted upon the appellant to refute
the employer-employee relationship between the parties. The
appellant was better placed in all respect to lead some evidence in this
regard so much so that he could have even summoned and examined
the co-worker Sanjay Kumar to disprove the relationship of employer
and employee.
22. During the course of arguments, much mileage is sought to be
drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant from the testimony of
Sanjay Kumar i.e., the co-worker recorded in the criminal proceedings
arising out of FIR No. 287/2014. Even a bare perusal of his testimony
recorded on 20.07.2022 would show that he categorically testified that
he had gone to the site in question along with the deceased, where the
fatal accident occurred. He also testified that they had gone to the
spot for repairing an Air Conditioner. Merely for the fact that he was
treated as a hostile witness by the prosecution does not afford any
credence to the defence of the appellant.
23. The plea by the learned counsel for the appellant that
respondent No.1 acknowledged that he did not know the proprietor of
the appellant hardly cuts any ice given the background of the parties.
It does not strike to reason that parents hailing from such a
background would be knowing the exact details of the employer.
There is no apparent reason for the Investigating Officer to have

fabricated the FIR or for that matter the co-worker Sanjay Kumar to
have given a false statement soon after the accident
24. Be that as it may, the finding of fact as to the relationship of
employer and employee between the appellant and the deceased is not
substantial question of law amenable to being considered in an appeal
under Section 30 of the EC Act. In so far as the decision in Shantabai
Ananda Jagtap (supra) is concerned, it has no application to the
matters in issue since it was a case where the legal heirs of the
deceased/claimant initially filed a claim petition under Section 166 of
the Motors Vehicles Act, 1988 wherein compensation was awarded
and thereafter they sought compensation under the EC Act. It is in the
said context that it was held that not only was the subsequent claim
petition not maintainable, but also that there was no established
relationship of employer and employee between the parties. The
decision in Shanti Sales Corporation (supra) was one where there
was a patent discrepancy as regards the date of the accident which the
witness stated to have taken place on 05.06.2004, but as per the
respondent/claimant it had taken place on 09.06.2004. It was a stark
case where the claimant had been unable to even prove a casual
employer-employee relationship between him and the management
and for that reason the claim was dismissed.
25. Suffice to state that the plethora of case law cited at the Bar to
the effect that an FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence emanate
from decisions in criminal matters, which by all means have no
application in the present summary proceedings.

26. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
impugned order does not suffer from any patent illegality, perversity
or incorrect approach adopted in law. The present appeal is dismissed
being misconceived and ill-conceived with exemplary costs of Rs.
25,000/- which be paid to the respondents No. 1 and 2 in equal share
within one month from today, failing which they shall be entitled to
claim the same with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this
order till realization.
27. The pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
FEBRUARY 13, 2024
Sadiq