FAO-358-2000 (O&M) [220] Bachna Ram Isham Sing Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] Commissio [2] on account during the respondent with high DDR No.2 Commissio documentar No.1. The was proved since he wa &M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA FAO-358 Date of De na Ram and others versus Singh and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Appellants-claimants are prese Ms. Devika Kamboj, Advocate Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate fo None for respondent No.3. **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Present appeal is directed a missioner under the Workmen’s Comp Claim petition was filed by the ccount of death of Rajbir @ Raja Ram g the course of his employment w ndent No.1. The deceased died of ele high powered electric wires which No.26 dated 06.10.1993 was register missioner vide impugned order reje mentary proof regarding employment . The Commissioner though recorded proved to have been engaged as an he was not employed on combine, no T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 358-2000 (O&M) of Decision : 19.02.2026 …Appellants ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN present-in-person. vocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, t No.1. for respondent No.2. cted against the order passed by th Compensation Act, 1923. by the appellants seeking compensatio ja Ram son of Bachna Ram, who die ent while working in the fields o of electrocution after coming in conta hich were lying broken in the field egistered with Police Station Kunjpur r rejected the claim for want of an ent of the deceased with responde orded that as per the evidence, decease s an agricultural labourer, but held th ne, no compensation can be awarded. 1 by the ensation ho died lds of ontact e fields. unjpura. of any pondent eceased that rded. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.26 18:56 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-358-2000 (O&M) [3] [4] Commissio electrocutio evidence, d with the br No.3. Co employed w Commissio the decease accident ari [5] deceased h are jointly schedule ap as hereunde [6] entitled for days after t actual reali [7] No.3, resp the awarded &M) I have heard appellants as well In the considered opinion of th missioner cannot be sustained. The rocution in the fields of respondent N nce, deceased was clearing way for c the broken wire lying in the fields. Commissioner has recorded the oyed with respondent No.1 as a farm missioner ought not have rejected t eceased lost his life while in emplo ent arising out of and during the cour Now the issue arises as to the ased having lost his life, this Court fin ointly and severally liable to pay c dule appended to Workmen’s Compen under:- 211.79 x 1000 x 50 / 100 =1,05 In terms of Section 4A of the led for interest @ 12% per annum for after the date of accident, i.e. 30 day l realization. Since the deceased lost his life , respondent No.3 is held liable to pa warded compensation. s well as counsels for the respondents n of this Court, the order passed by th The fact of the deceased having died o ent No.1 is not in dispute. As per th y for combine when he came in conta ields. The wire belongs to responde the findings that the deceased wa a farm labourer. In view thereof, th ected the claim as it stands proved th employment of respondent No.1 in a e course of his employment. to the liability to pay compensation, th finds that all the three responden pay compensation. In terms of mpensation Act, the same is compute =1,05,895/-. of the Act, the claimants shall also for the period commencing from 3 0 days after 06.10.1993 till the date o his life due to negligence of responde e to pay penalty which shall be 50% o 2 ndents. d by the died of per the contact pondent sed was eof, the ved that .1 in an tion, the ondents the mputed also be from 30 date of pondent 50% of RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.26 18:56 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-358-2000 (O&M) [8] deceased R also died. amongst ap [9] [10] disposed of 19.02.2026 ‘R. Sharma' &M) Appellant No.1 and appellan ased Rajbir @ Raja Ram have died. died. The compensation is accord gst appellants as under:- 1. Appellant No.3 = 2. Appellant No.4 = 3. Appellant No.5 = Disposed off. All pending miscellaneous a ed off. .2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable ppellant No.2 i.e. the parents of th died. Appellant No.6-Nisha Devi ha accordingly ordered to be apportione 50% 25% 25% eous application(s), if any, stands (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 3 s of the evi has ortioned tands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.26 18:56 I agree to specified portions of this document