fa596.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.596 OF 2011 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Parbhani, 2) The Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Parbhani, 3) Suresh Kishanrao Phad, Age-40 years, Occu:Service, Senior Engineer in PWD Sub Division, Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 4) Shaikh Babu Shaikh Abbas, Age-45 years, Occu:Service, Road Karkoon, Sub Division Office, PWD, Sub Division, Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. 5) Sanjay Vasantrao Misal, Age-35 years, Occu: Contractor, R/o-Mardasgaon, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. ...APPELLANTS. VERSUS Shivaji Dagdu Khandare, Age-30 years, Occu:Now Nil, R/o-Awalgaon, Tq-Sonpeth, Dist-Parbhani. ...RESPONDENT. fa596.11 2 ... Shri. T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for Appellants. None present for Respondent. ... CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 11TH JULY, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This is an Appeal preferred by the original Respondents raising exception to the Award passed by the Ex-Officio Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani on 31st October, 2009 in N.F.A. No.15 of 2007. 2. The Respondent was employed as a labourer by the Appellants herein for assisting in carrying out the work of leveling the land and survey measurement within the limits of Wadgaon Station. fa596.11 3 It is the contention of the original claimant, Respondent herein, that on the relevant date he was employed by the original Respondents. He was directed to hold aluminium rod with a view to carry out the work of leveling and measurement. He was instructed to hold the rod in upward direction and during the continuance of work, the aluminium rod which the claimant was holding, came in contact with the live electric wire. The claimant sustained severe electric shock and became unconscious. As a result of the accidental injuries, his left hand below elbow was required to be amputed, and right hand got permanently damaged. The right leg of the claimant also sustained burn injuries and the same also got bended permanently. He was hospitalized for about two and half months at Mumbai and had to incur expenses to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for the medical treatment. According to the claimant, as a result of injuries, he has become permanently disabled and is unable to do any kind of work. fa596.11 4 3. The claimant issued notice to the original Respondents to make payment of compensation, but they failed to take any cognizance thereof. As such the claimant was required to approach the Court seeking the payment of compensation. 4. The original Respondent No.2 resisted the claim of the claimant by filing written statement at Exhibit 15. The written statement filed by original Respondent No.2 was adopted by the other Respondents by filing purshis at Exhibit 16. According to the original Respondents, the original Respondent No.5 was appointed as a contractor to execute the work of leveling and the claimant was employed as a labourer by the said contractor. The allegations in respect of sustaining injuries during the course of employment by the claimant, have been denied by the contesting Respondents. According to the fa596.11 5 original Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, they are not concerned with the accident and are not liable to pay compensation, as the concerned labourer was appointed by original Respondent No.5. The original Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 denied the employer-employee relationship and denied the liability to pay the compensation. 5. The claimant led his evidence and substantiated his contentions in respect of occurrence of the accident and his sustaining injuries during the course of employment. The original Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, however, did not lead any evidence. 6. The trial Court, on considering the evidence led by the claimant, came to the conclusion that the claimant has substantiated his contentions and as such directed the original Respondents to pay compensation to the claimant to the tune of Rs.1,12,308/-, along with the penalty fa596.11 6 to the extent of 50%, amounting to Rs.56,154/- and interest at the rate of 12% thereon, from the date of accident till realization of the amount. 7. I have perused the Judgment and Award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. As recorded above, the original Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 did not lead any evidence and did nothing except filing written statement controverting the contentions of the claimants. The trial Court was justified in observing that principal employer along with the contractor are responsible to pay the compensation to the claimant in respect of the injuries sustained by him. On perusal of the record, Judgment of the trial Court as well as the record made available by the learned A.G.P. appearing for the State, while arguing the matter, I am convinced that no substantial question of law is involved in the matter. The Appeal is devoid of substance and therefore the Appeal stands dismissed. fa596.11 7 8. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, nothing survives for consideration in the pending Civil Applications and therefore the same are also disposed of. [R.M. BORDE, J.] asb/JULY11