* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :
11. h DECEMBER, 2017 DECIDED ON :
12. h JANUARY, 2018 FAO2092016 & CM Nos.17269/2016 & 20941/2016 ASHOKA TRANSWAYS SERVICES (P) LTD...... Appellant Through : Mr.Prakash Khandelwal, Advocate. versus RAMESH CHANDER Through : Mr.R.K.Nain, Advocate. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG + S.P.GARG, J.
1. Present appeal has been preferred by Ashoka Transways Services (P) Ltd. (hereinafter ‘the appellant’) to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 07.03.2016 of the learned Commissioner under Section 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) whereby the respondent was given compensation amount of `1,95,468/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from one month after the date of accident i.e. 29.10.2012. The appeal is contested by the respondent.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The respondent filed claim petition under Section 22 of the Act. It was averred that the respondent was employed as a loader with the appellant for loading and unloading of the vehicles. FAO2092016 Page 1 of 7 On 29.09.2012, the respondent sustained personal injuries out of and during the course of employment. On that day, the respondent was at M/s. Ashoka Transport Company at about 09.00 a.m. A vehicle came from Rajasthan loaded with Balotra cloth bundle. The respondent was instructed to unload the vehicle. He mounted on the ‘dalla’ and suddenly it was unbolted; as a result of which, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to a nearby local doctor and was medically treated. He suffered 100% disability. It was further averred that the respondent was drawing wages @ `8,000/- per annum and was aged around 44 years.
3. The claim was contested by the appellant and it was stated that the Commissioner had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. The respondent was not an employee with the appellant and he did not suffer any such injury.
4. To establish its case, the respondent examined himself as AW-1 besides examining Sayed Ahmed and Suraj Sharma. Mr.Ashok Aggarwal examined himself on behalf of the appellant. After considering the evidence on record and the rival contentions of the parties, the impugned order was passed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.
5. On perusal of the statement of the claimant Ramesh Chander coupled with the statements of Sayed Ahmed and Suraj Sharma, it stands established that the respondent was employed with the appellant through contractor Rattan Singh for loading and unloading of the goods on the trucks belonging to the appellant at the godown situated at Delhi – U.P. border. The claimant filed his FAO2092016 Page 2 of 7 evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.AW-1/A) and relied upon documents (Ex.AW-
to Ex.AW-1/3). In the cross-examination, he fairly admitted that he did not have any documentary proof regarding his employment with the appellant. He denied the suggestion that he was not working with the appellant. He reiterated that he was working at Delhi – U.P. boarder which came under the territory of district Ghaziabad, U.P. Ashok Agarwal, Director of the appellant company in the cross-examination admitted that the appellant had a godown at Delhi – U.P. boarder at Chikambarpur, Gyani Border, Ghaziabad, U.P. and it was being managed by one Prabhat Kumar. He further admitted that there were three employees working in the said godown. The appellant did not examine Prabhat Kumar to deny the respondent’s employment on the relevant date with the appellant. Ashok Agarwal further admitted that at the godown, they did not keep any register entering the names of the persons employed. He, however, admitted that Rattan Singh was the ‘thekedar’ who used to bring labour to work at the godown for them. He expressed ignorance if the respondent worked on 29.09.2012 at their godown for the purpose of loading and unloading of goods. There is, thus, no complete denial of the respondent’s employment with the appellant. Complainant’s statement has been corroborated in material particulars by Sayed Ahmed and Suraj Sharma who were also employed with the appellant company. There exist no valid reasons to disbelieve their testimonies.
6. The findings of the learned Commissioner that the claimant sustained grievous injuries are based upon medical FAO2092016 Page 3 of 7 documents on record. It is highly unbelievable that the claimant would fake the injuries sustained by him.
7. Regarding territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim at Delhi, the appellant has not shown if any prejudice has been caused to him. The learned Commissioner had afforded reasonable opportunities to all the parties. The claim petition was contested by the appellant before the learned Commissioner. It was not exactly established as to where the godown was situated. It is stated that it was on the Delhi – U.P. border. Under this circumstance, filing the claim petition by the respondent, who was a resident of Jammu and Kashmir, in Delhi cannot be considered malafide. Ashok Agarwal who appeared as a witness in the proceedings admittedly was a Director in the appellant company and he resided in Rohini (Delhi). The appellant company has several godowns at various places all over India. The claim awarded by the Trial Court cannot be frustrated merely because the learned Commissioner had no territorial jurisdiction. The provisions under the Act are benevolent provisions for the victims of the accidents. In ‘Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.’, 2009 ACJ564 the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court whereby the claim awarded by the Tribunal was set aside on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
8. In ‘Malati Sardar vs. National Insurance Company Ltd & Ors..’, 2016 (1) TAC (SC), again the Supreme Court observed : “14. The provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. territorial The provision for FAO2092016 Page 4 of 7 facilitating remedies jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object of the victims of accidents. Hyper technical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated……” for 9. In ‘Morgina Begum vs. Managing Director, Hanuman Plantation Ltd.’, MANU/SC/3856/2007, the Supreme Court observed: “7. The idea behind introduction of this amendment is that migrant labourers all over the country often go elsewhere to earn their livelihood. When an accident takes place then in order to facilitate the claimants they may make their claim not necessarily at the place where the accident took place but also at the place where they ordinarily reside. This amendment was introduced in the Act in 1995. This was done with a very laudable object, otherwise it could cause hardship to the claimant to claim compensation under the Act. It is not possible for poor workmen or their dependents who reside in one part of the country and shift from one place to another for their livelihood to necessarily go to the place of the accident for filing a claim petition. It may be very expensive for the claimants to pursue in such a claim petition because of the financial and other hardship. It would entail the poor claimant traveling from one place to another for getting compensation. Labour statutes are for the welfare of the workmen. This Court has in the case of Bharat Singh v. Management of New Tuberculosis and Ors. MANU/SC/0322/19
(1986)IILLJ217SC has taken the view that welfare legislation should be given a purposive interpretation safeguarding the rights of the have-nots rather than giving a literal construction. In case of doubt the interpretation in favour of the worker should be preferred. The view which we are taking has been taken by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of S.K. Saukat Ali Alias Sekho S.K. v. Commissioner for New Delhi center, FAO2092016 Page 5 of 7 Compensation-cum-Deputy Workmen's Labour Commissioner, Cuttack and Ors. 1999 (2) TAC638(Ori) and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Noorjahan v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Hyderabad and Anr. 1999 (3) T.A.C. 276 (AP). Hence, we are of the opinion that the view taken by both these High Courts is correct. A claimant can apply before the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area where the claimant ordinarily resides, and it is not always necessary to prefer a claim petition where the accident has taken place. This is for the facility of the workmen and advances the cause of welfare of the workmen. Therefore, the view taken by the Gauhati High Court in the impugned order that the claim petition could only be filed at the place where the accident had taken place, cannot be sustained. Section 21(1)(b) read with its proviso is a beneficial legislation for the welfare of the workmen and by the above interpretation, it will advance the cause of the workmen. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Gauhati High Court in the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly we set aside the impugned order.” 10. In the instant case, the poor workman was unable to decipher as to which claim tribunal had the territorial jurisdiction as the godown where he worked was situated at Delhi – U.P. border. Benefit must go to the respondent. The claim awarded by the learned Commissioner based upon fair appreciation of the evidence cannot be disturbed on hyper-technicalities.
11. The learned Commissioner has awarded interest @ 12% per annum from 29.10.2012 which seems to be somewhat unreasonable. The Order to that extent is modified and the FAO2092016 Page 6 of 7 respondent shall be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
12. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications stand disposed of.
13. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order.
14. Order ‘dasti’. JANUARY12 2018 / tr (S.P.GARG) JUDGE FAO2092016 Page 7 of 7