( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1404 OF 2008 1. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. through its Executive Engineer (M.S.E.D.C.L.), D & O, Hingoli, Tq. and Dist. Hingoli. 2. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., through its Junior Engineer (M.S.E.D.C.L.), Sub-Station, Girgaon, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli. APPELLANTS VERSUS Mr. Govind s/o Limbaji Raut, R/o Girgaon, Tq. Basmath, District Hingoli. RESPONDENT ..... Mr. A.S. Bajaj, advocate for the appellants. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 12th November, 2009] ( 2 ) ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Original respondents have preferred this appeal against judgement rendered by learned Civil Judge (S.D.) and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Hingoli, in Claim Petition bearing N.F.A. No. 10/2006. 2. The respondent is original claimant. He filed claim application under section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, seeking compensation alongwith penalty and interest as well as costs. 3. The claimant’s case before the trial Court was that he was engaged as Line Helper to do casual work as per instructions of Junior Engineer Mr. Sattar, who was incharge of Girgaon village area. On 30th September, 2005, he was assigned work of repairing a D.P. which was having some fault. He alongwith Assistant Lineman, namely, Narsinghanna, Lineman Jumde and others went to the work-site. Then, initially, Lineman Jumde climbed on the D.P. to remove the fault. The electricity line was cut-off in order to facilitate repairs of the D.P. ( 3 ) The Lineman (Mr. Jumde), however, could not locate the fault and came down. The respondent averred that he thereafter climbed on the D.P. and connected two D.O. wires. While he was connecting third D.O. wire, all of a sudden, he received electric shock and was thrown off. He fell on the ground from platform of the D.P. He received burn injuries to the right hand. He was shifted to Civil Hospital at Nanded. He was required to obtain medical treatment from 30th September, 2005 to 23rd October, 2005. His right hand had been amputated from the shoulder. He has become permanently disabled to the extent of 52 per cent. The accident occurred in due course of his employment with the appellants. He, therefore, urged them to compensate, but they refused to do so. Consequently, he filed the claim petition. 4. By their common written statement (Exh-11), the appellants resisted the claim application. According to them, the respondent was not employee of the applicant No. 2. Nor he was assigned the work to repair the fault in the D.P. It was contended that he unauthorizedly climbed on the D.P. and was involved in the accident. ( 4 ) It was further contended that the respondent could not have claimed any compensation because he was never appointed as casual labour nor was being paid any amount by the appellants. In other words, the main thrust of the defence was that the accident did not occur in the course of employment of the claimant (respondent). It was not, however, denied that the claimant was injured during course of the said accident of his right hand came to be amputated. 5. The learned Civil Judge and Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner came to the conclusion that the claimant was a casual worker and the accident occurred while he was engaged in repairing the D.P. in the course of his employment. The learned Civil Judge further held that the appellants were liable to pay compensation alongwith interest at rate of 12 per cent from date of the accident. An award for compensation of Rs. 1,83,465/- alongwith 50 per cent penalty of Rs. 91,732/- and interest at rate of 12 per cent per year was drawn. ( 5 ) 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The only material point, which arises for determination in this appeal, is thus : “Whether the respondent (claimant) was injured and became disabled to the extent of 52 per cent as a result of the accident while he was engaged in the work in the course of his employment with the appellants ?” 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent had climbed on the D.P. on the relevant date. The incident occurred on 30th September, 2005 while attempt was being made to remove fault from the D.P. There is no dispute about the fact that the D.P. was out of order at the relevant time. It is also undisputed that the respondent had climbed on the D.P. and had fallen down after receiving electricity shock of live electricity wire. It is undisputed that his right hand had to be amputated due to the accidental injuries received by him. The quantum of compensation awarded to ( 6 ) him is well justified. 9. Clinching question is whether the compensation could be awarded from the appellants. It is true, no doubt, that there is no documentary evidence to show that the respondent was a regular employee of the appellants. He did not produce any record to show that he was on pay-roll. He also did not produce any record to show that he was engaged as casual labour under any specific order of the appellants and was assigned the particular work to carry out repairs of the D.P. It is contended by Mr. Bajaj, learned counsel for the appellants, that status of the respondent could not be that of a workman within the meaning of definition under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. He contended that since the respondent was not workman of the appellants, they were not liable to pay any compensation to him. 10. So far as provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 are concerned, the definition of expression ”workman” is of greater amplitude. A plain ( 7 ) reading of section 2 (n) (ii) coupled with Schedule-II would make it amply clear that a person employed under implied contract or even under oral directions can be included in the definition of the expression “workman”. The definition given in sub-clause (n) of section 2 will have to be read with Schedule-II. The relevant entry (xix) reads as follows : “(xix) employed, otherwise than in a clerical capacity, int he generating, transforming, transmitting or distribution of electrical energy or in generation or supply of gas; or” 11. The appellants adduced evidence to show that the respondent was not a regular employee. He was not on the pay roll. His name was not shown in the muster roll. What transpires from the record is that the claimant was having experience and, therefore, was orally asked to do the work. It appears that he was working as private assistant of the lineman. The regular lineman, namely, Shri Jumbde had gone on the plank of the D.P. to carry out the repairs. He could ( 8 ) not locate the fault and came down. It was thereafter that the respondent (claimant) had gone to carry out the work of repairs. He partly carried out the work and it was only when he was connecting the third wire that he came in contact with the electric current. He was thus working on the D.P. in presence of other linemen. Had he no connection, whatsoever, with the work of repairs and his climbing on the D.P. was unauthorized, immediately the employed lineman would have objected to his acts. In any case, they would have reported to the office that the unauthorized person had climbed on the D.P. and had fallen down. Moreover, a report could have been lodged to the Police Station that due to self- negligence and excessive daring of the respondent, he had sustained the injury. Nothing of the sort was done. On the other hand, the Junior Engineer gave reports vide Exh-25 and Exh-26. The copies of the reports are on record. The entry in column No. 5 of report (Exh-25) would show that brief description of the job undertaken has been shown as “maintaining D.P.” It is, no doubt, true, indicated that he was not allowed to work on the job. This report was submitted on 2nd October, 2005 i.e. ( 9 ) after two days of the incident. Obviously, during the intervening time, an attempt could have been made to get rid of the liability by showing that he was unconcerned with the job. The record reveals that though the respondent was not in regular employment as such, yet, he had casual connection with the work of the appellants due to the assignment of the work either by the Junior Engineer or the lineman of the appellants. Consequently, the appellants cannot deny the vicarious liability to pay compensation to the respondent. The appellants may not be tort-feasors in stricto senso. Still, however, the vicarious liability would stem from the nature of the work assigned to the respondent by the authorized employee of the appellants and as such, it will have to be said that the respondent is entitled to claim compensation from the appellants. 12. Mr. Katneshwarkar seeks to rely on certain observations in “Maghar Singh v. Jashwant Singh” (1998) 9 S.C.C. 134. It was a case of accident wherein a private employee was injured. The fact situation in the ( 10 ) given case is quite different. The spectrum of definition of word “workman” under section 2 (n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 being broad enough to cover the case of the respondent, I do not find any serious error committed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner while awarding the compensation to him from the appellants. 13. In the result, the first appeal is destitute of substance and as such, is dismissed. No costs. 14. In view of dismissal of the first appeal, the civil applications No. 10554/2007 and 1814/2009 do not survive and hence, stand dismissed accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/fa1404-08