O R D E R
(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)
1. The complainant who is the brother of deceased Madhubabu a contractor worker under 1st opposite party filed this complaint claiming an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased while he was attending to electrical works pertaining to the 2nd opposite party.
2 The allegations in the complaint in brief are that the brother of the complainant Suresh Madhubabu died accidentally due to fall from the electrical pole while he was on duty 26.03.2010 near BSNL Office, Tuni at about 11.30 A.M. The deceased was an employee of the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party is a electrical contractor who entered into an agreement with APEPDCL as per which he engaged the deceased as line operator working under APEPDCL, Tuni. The deceased was engaged for attending fuse of call works and also emergency works of APEPDCL, Tuni. The 1st opposite party insured the life of the deceased with the 2nd opposite party insurance company and also another person covering risk of two employees.
3 It is also the case of the complainant after the deceased fell down from the electrical pole and sustained grievous injuries he was shifted to Tuni Area Hospital, from there he was referred to Government General Hospital, Kakinada and he died on 21.04.2010 at G.G.H., Kakinada due to above said accident. The Tuni Town Police also registered a FIR.
4 It is also the case of the complainant the deceased was earning nearly Rs.5,000/- per month and he was only income source to the complainant and the complainant also has another brother by name Satish Kumar who gave no objection certificate for the entitlement of claim to him and except them, there are no other legal heirs to the deceased as such he is entitled to Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation from opposite parties. He requested opposite party personally several times for the compensation but of no avail. He also issued a notice to the opposite party on 14.02.2012. Having received the notice the opposite party did not issue any reply nor paid compensation. According to him as there is gross negligence on the part of the opposite party and deficiency of service he sought the above said compensation.
5 The 1st opposite party filed his written version claiming he is a contractor under Electrical Department and he entered into an agreement for a period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010. As per the agreement he engaged two persons privately for the contract works to assist O & M staff for the fuse of call centers for attending fuse calls and bring and feed back reports from respective customers in Operation Section of Tuni Town. Out of the two persons the deceased is one of the said persons engaged by him and insured with 2nd opposite party covering the risk of 2nd employee. According to him the deceased while attending to his duties fell down from electrical pole, sustained injuries and shifted to Tuni Hospital from there to GGH, Kakinada and while under going treatment he died on 21.04.2010.
6 It is also his version the 2nd opposite party alone is responsible for the compensation to the complainant and he is not a necessary party. Thus contending he sought dismissal of the complaint.
7 The 2nd opposite party filed its written version denying the material allegations in the complaint and putting the complainant to strict proof of the allegations. According to them the deceased is not at all employee under 1st opposite party and they also disputed about earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. According to them the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and the complainant has to approach either Civil Court or Labour Tribunal.
8 The 2nd opposite party filed additional written version contending that the policy was issued by Branch Office, Tuni and till the date of receipt of summons the 1st opposite party never submitted any claim forms with regard to the alleged accident to them. They only received legal notice from the advocate of the complainant. They never repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant at the first instance has to approach them to settle the claim but he never approached them. Hence there is no repudiation.
9 It is also their version after receipt of notice their office instructed the advocate to direct the complainant to submit the details of claim as well as employment of the deceased etc. to process the claim. According to them after receipt of notice from advocate of the complainant they sent a letter to the 1st opposite party to submit the claim forms, wage statements etc. The said notice was received by 1st opposite party but they did not furnish any information.
10 It is also their version the complainant is a major and workman and he is not a dependent on the deceased. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any compensation.
11 Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
3. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the amount as sought by him?
4. To what relief?
12 Point No.1: One of the contentions of the 2nd opposite party is that as the deceased was an employee and died out of during the course of his employment. The Labour Court is the proper Forum to adjudicate the matter and not this Forum.
13 According to the complainant and also 1st opposite party the deceased was line operator working under 1st opposite party for the Department of 2nd opposite party and he died while attending to work due to accidental fall from electrical pole. Thus it is clear the deceased died out of and during the course of his employment and it is also fortified by Exs.A7 to A9 copy of FIR, Inquest report and post mortem report. As there is Separate Forum constituted to settled the claims of workers the complainant has to approach to Labour Commissioner or Labour Court for settlement of his claim and not this Forum. Thus as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for 2nd opposite party this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Thus this point is answered accordingly.
14 Point No.2: To buttress his contention the complainant furnished his proof affidavit and marked 10 documents Exs. A1 to A10 which are Xerox copy of insurance policy, legal heir certificate issued by M.R.O., Notarized affidavit of Satish Kumar the brother of the complainant, Letter addressed by the Chief General Manager, APEPDCL to the complainant, office copy of lawyer’s notice, postal receipt, copy of FIR, copy of inquest report, copy of post mortem report and identity card.
15 Though the 2nd opposite party disputed the status of the deceased as an employee under 1st opposite party. Ex.A4 which is copy of the letter from Chief General Manager, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam addressed to the complainant it would indicate they approved Exgratia amount for the death of the deceased and requested the complainant to approach the Divisional Engineer, Jaggampeta for further course of action. Thus apart Ex.A10 a identify card issued by the Department would also indicate that deceased was working for the 2nd opposite party.
16 In this regard the plea of the 2nd opposite party is that after the death of the deceased either the complainant or 1st opposite party never submitted any claim forms for settlement of the amount and they never repudiated any claim and as such there is no question of deficiency of service on their part. The plea taken by the 2nd opposite party in the written version as well as in the proof affidavit about non submission of claim forms either by the complainant or by 1st opposite party is not disputed by them. Hence under these circumstances when there was no claim submitted by the 1st opposite party the contention of the complainant that there is deficiency of service on the part of 2nd opposite party does not arise. There is no legally acceptable material produced by the complainant to support his contention.
17 Reiterating their stand 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed their proof affidavits and the 1st opposite party marked Ex.B1 copy of agreement entered with the 2nd opposite party and 2nd opposite party exhibited Ex.B2 the copy of policy issued by them.
18 As neither the complainant nor 1st opposite party submitted any claim forms the allegations of the deficiency of service on the part of 2nd opposite party doesn’t arise. Hence under these circumstances the complainant failed to make out any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this point is answered accordingly.
19 Point No.3: Though the complainant claims compensation for the death of deceased admittedly he is a major, working as a private employee earning amount and hence he can’t be considered as dependent on the income of deceased. Thus in these circumstances and in view of the findings rendered under point Nos. 1 and 2 the complainant is not entitled for any amount sought by him. Thus this point is answered against the complainant.
20. In the result, the complaint is dismissed in the circumstances without costs.
Dictation taken by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 23rd day of April, 2015.
Sd/-XXX Sd/-XXXXX
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant:
Sri Manappurapu Rajesh
For opposite parties:
Sri V. Subrahmanyam
Sri Yelamanchili Kumar
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 Xerox copy of insurance policy
Ex.A2 Legal heir certificate issued by M.R.O.
Ex.A3 Notarized affidavit of Satish Kumar the brother of the complainant
Ex.A4 Letter addressed by the Chief General Manager, APEPDCL to the complainant
Ex.A5 Office copy of lawyer’s notice
Ex.A6 Postal receipt
Ex.A7 Copy of FIR
Ex.A8 Copy of inquest report
Ex.A9 Copy of post mortem report
Ex.A10 Identity card.
For opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Copy of agreement entered with the 2nd opposite party and
Ex.B2 Copy of policy issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Sd/-XXXX Sd/-XXXXX
MEMBER PRESIDENT
