- (1.) This order will dispose of FAO No. 5501 of 2014 titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Meeru and others & FAO. No. 5502 of 2014 titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sundri and others as common questions of law and fact are involved and the occurrence is the same. The facts are taken from FAO No. 5501 of 2014. Deceased Ranjeet and Megh Lal were employed at a stone crusher site owned by respondent Nos. 5 and 7 in their claimants respective appeals. Both the employees worked and resided at the stone crusher site as was required by the employer. While preparing a meal on February 09, 2011 they suffered serious burn injuries when the gas cylinder exploded due to leakage of gas. They died on the spot. Their claimants approached the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, Circle Bhiwani praying for award of compensation under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 as amended. The employer and the Insurance Company were arrayed parties. The petitions were contested by both. Ranjeet was about 25 years of age at the time of death while Megh Lal was aged about 50 years. They were both married and left behind families and children.
(2.) The learned Commissioner, Employee's Compensation by two separate orders both dated May 29, 2014 has allowed the claim applications and has directed the Appellant-New India Assurance Company Ltd. to bear the burden of compensation awarded within 30 days of the pronouncement failing which the compensation package would earn simple interest @ 12% from the date of the order. No penalty has been imposed on the employer.
(3.) The sole ground pressed in these appeals by the Insurance Company is that the deceased workers were cooking meals when the cylinder burst and this could not be said to be in the course of employment. There is no dispute that both the workers were employed at the stone crushing site by the common employer and that the stone crusher was covered on the date of accident by an insurance policy Ex. R-1. It is also not disputed that both the workers worked and resided at site with the permission of the employer. The factum of death at site admits no dispute or the injuries received resulted in instant death. The Commissioner after appreciating the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that both the deceased used to reside at the stone crusher and it was obligatory on the part of the deceased to remain present all the time at the stone crushing site. Cooking meals at the site of work in the presence of the owner of the stone crusher indicates that the work of the deceased was not done and was in progress and the deceased were occupied in cooking meals side by side of attending work. The Commissioner has reasoned that cooking meals at the place of work is a bona fide reason which does not result in suspension or cessation of the contract of employment or it is not arising in the course of it. If the deceased were multitasking, working and at the same time cooking meals shoulder to shoulder during and in the course of employment then it cannot be assumed that mere is no causal connection between injury and death in the course of employment There also appears to be no palpable error of fact in assessing income of the deceased as per available record. It is not the case that the gas cylinder was personal to the deceased. If kitchen facility and cooking gas were supplied by the employer at his expense to keep the deceased going then in absence of any evidence to the contrary it can be safely inferred that preparing food was part and parcel of the engagement while stationed at the workplace. Disadvantaged labour earn for food and can have little savings, if not whatsoever, from their minimum wages. It is also not the case in defence that the deceased were cooking dinner after nightfall or when work for the day was done and the time of death was beyond duty hours. I find no reason to differ with the conclusions reached by the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation or to disturb the findings of fact in both the appeals. No question of law much less substantial arises for consideration of this Court and the appeals are accordingly dismissed.;