The Delhi High Court has upheld compensation of over ₹7.86 lakh awarded to a construction site supervisor who lost his left leg after an iron rod being lifted by a mobile crane fell on him, holding that an accident during a lunch break at the work site arose “out of and in the course of employment.”
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri dismissed an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Ltd., affirming the 2016 order of the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner directing the insurer to pay ₹7,86,492 with 12% annual interest from July 22, 2010.
The claimant told the Commissioner that he was employed as a supervisor at a construction site in Bhalswa, Delhi. On June 22, 2010, after completing his assigned work, he had gone for lunch when an iron rod being lifted by a mobile crane fell on him, causing injuries that resulted in the amputation of his left leg.
He sought compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, contending that the injuries arose in the course of his employment. The Commissioner accepted the claim, assessed the worker’s monthly wages at ₹6,000 and his loss of earning capacity at 75%, and awarded compensation with interest, holding the insurer liable.
In appeal, the insurer contended that there was no employer-employee relationship between the claimant and the crane owner. It also contended that the claimant, being a supervisor performing managerial duties, did not qualify as an “employee” under the Act. It also contended that the accident occurred during a lunch break.
Rejecting the submissions, the court, in its July 23 order, said the Commissioner’s findings were based on evidence and warranted no interference.
The court said merely describing the claimant as a supervisor was insufficient to exclude him from the definition of an employee. It noted that the insurer had failed to produce material to show that he performed managerial or administrative functions.
Addressing the contention that the accident occurred during a lunch break, the court said, “The accident admittedly occurred at the work site while the claimant was present there in connection with his employment. A temporary break for taking meals does not, by itself, sever the nexus between employment and the accident.”
The court dismissed the appeal and directed that the amount deposited before the Commissioner, along with accrued interest, be released to the claimant in accordance with law.
