FAO/4024/2013 on 12 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

FAO (WCA)No. 4024 of 2013

Reserved on: 01.10.2026 Date of decision: 12.10.2026 Date of uploading on website: 12.10.2026 ________________________________________________ Maya Devi

…..Appellant.

Versus Sham Lal

……Respondent. ________________________________________________

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the appellant:

Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. H.S. Rana & Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, Advocates.

Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

The present appeal is maintained by the appellant, who was the petitioner/claimant, before the learned Commissioner below (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner/claimant”) against award dated 02.01.2013, passed by learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, Una, District Una, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Commissioner below”) in E.C.A. No. 7/2008, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/claimant

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

(appellant herein), before the learned Commissioner below, under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act (for short “the Act”), was dismissed.

2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the petitioner/claimant, i.e., Smt. Maya Devi, preferred a petition under Section 22 of the Act, before the learned Commissioner below, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of her son, i.e., Shri Satwinder Singh (deceased). As per the petitioner, during the year 2008, the respondent-Shri Sham Lal was working as contractor to sell the mangoes, after plucking the same from the trees, which were purchased by him. The respondent made the deceased to climb mango tree where a cluster of honey bees was knitted amidst the branches of the tree. The petitioner averred that the respondent knew the factum of honey bees and he knowingly and deliberately kept the deceased in dark. Around 11:30 a.m., on 21.07.2008, when the deceased was busy plucking mangoes, suddenly honey bees attacked him and infused sufficient quantity of poison into the body of the deceased, which resulted into his renal failure. The deceased had raised hue and cry, whereupon labourers gathered on the spot, who took him to his house, where the condition of the deceased deteriorated, therefore, he was rushed to CHC, Haroli, wherefrom he was referred to Civil Hospital, Una. The deceased was treated at Civil Hospital, Una, on 21st and 22nd July, 2008 and was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he died on 30.07.2008. The petitioner/claimant averred that from 21.07.2008 to 30.07.2008 the petitioner spent Rs.85,000/- on medicines, food, transport etc., including the funeral expenses. The deceased was young boy of 18 years and had studied upto 9th standard. He was a mechanic and used to earn Rs.800- 10,000/- per month. The petitioner further averred that the deceased used to give Rs.7000/- per month to her for her day to day expenses, thus she was dependent upon him. Lastly, the petitioner/claimant sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondent.

3. The respondent contested the claim petition by filing reply, wherein they took preliminary objections of maintainability and cause of action. On merits it was submitted that the respondent never remained contractor for plucking the mango fruit, as he was running vegetable sale shop in village Palkwah. The respondent further averred that there was no question of hiring the services of Satwinder

Singh. As per the respondent, the allegations leveled by the petitioner were false and concocted. He prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent, wherein she reasserted and reaffirmed the averments made in the claim petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, on 01.09.2009, the learned Commissioner below framed the following issues for determination and adjudication: “1. Whether the deceased Satwinder Singh was a workman within the purview of WCA and whether his death has arisen out of and during the course of his employment with the respondent? OPP

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to received compensation, if issue supra is affirmative? OPP

3. What is the amount of compensation? OPP

4. Relief.”

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner below dismissed the claim petition, hence the instant appeal preferred by the appellant (petitioner/claimant).

7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and carefully examined the entire record.

8. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned award suffers from various material irregularities and the learned Commissioner below had not considered the evidence of the appellant (petitioner/claimant), as the respondent had engaged the son of the petitioner, as it has been proved on record that the respondent had engaged the son of the petitioner (deceased) as labourer to pluck mango fruit and when the deceased was busy in plucking the mango fruit on a mango tree, suddenly, honey bees attacked on him with their poisonous stings, as a result of which he died. He further contended that the deceased was engaged by the respondent as a labourer and he died during the course of his employment, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to compensation.

9. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the deceased never engaged as a labourer by the respondent and the learned Commissioner below had rightly dismissed the claim petition, so preferred by the petitioner.

10. On 08.07.2013/12.08.2013, the instant appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the learned Court below totally mis-appreciated and misconstrued the entire oral and documentary evidence on record especially with regard to the employer, employee relationship and cause of accident?

2. Whether the findings of the learned Court below are a result of complete misreading of pleadings, evidence and the law as applicable to the facts of the present case?

3. Whether the court below has failed to formulate proper points for determination and whether failure of it has affected its judgment and resulted into miscarriage of justice to the appellant?

11. The establishment of following conditions are sine qua non to claim compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act:

1. That there exists a relationship of employer and employee;

2. that the accident arose out of and during the course of employment.

12. Now the question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the claimants have established that there was relationship of employee and employer between deceased-Satwinder Singh and respondent-Sham Lal and whether he died during the course of his employment. In order to prove their case, the petitioner had examined as many as four witnesses, i.e., PW-1 Smt. Maya Devi (petitioner), PW-2 Shri Vijay Kumar, PW-3 Shri Manohar Lal and PW-4 Smt. Mahinder Kaur. On the other hand, the respondent had examined three witnesses, i.e., RW-1 Shri Ravinder Singh, who tendered in evidence his affidavit, RW-2 Shri Kamal Singh and RW-3 Shri Sham Lal.

13. The case of the petitioner is that on 21.07.2008 the services of Satwinder Singh (since deceased) were hired by the respondent and he was engaged as a labourer to pluck mango fruits from the orchard situated at village Karampur. The respondent made Satwinder Singh climb on the tree of a mango to pluck mango fruit and there was a cluster of honey bees amidst the branches of the said mango tree. As per the petitioners, the factum of such cluster of honey bees was well within the knowledge of the respondent, but not in the knowledge of deceased and the respondent had knowingly and intentionally kept the deceased in dark about the danger to his life. At about 11:30 a.m., when the deceased was busy in plucking the mango fruit on a mango tree, suddenly, honey bees attacked on him with their poisonous stings, which resulted into renal failure and Satwinder Singh ultimately succumbed to his injuries at PGI, Chandigarh on 30.07.2008.

14. Therefore, the onus was upon the petitioners/claimants to establish that there was a relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and the respondent. However, there is no material on record to suggest that there was any employee and employer relation between the deceased and the respondent. Although, the petitioner has placed on record copy of Rapat Roznamcha No. 10, dated 18.09.2008, Police Post Haroli, but there is no reference in the said rapat that the services of Satwinder Singh (since deceased) were hired by the respondent for plucking the mango fruit from mango trees.

15. Similarly, the copy of medical certificate of cause of death, Ex. P1, placed on record by the petitioner, demonstrates that Satwinder Singh had died as a result of acute respirators distress syndrome and the antecedent cause was shown to be wasp bite, acute tubular necrosis and acute renal failure and pigment nephropathy. As per the medical officer, the deceased had died as a result of wasp bite, but the case of the petitioner was that the deceased had died as a result of honey bees bites with their poisonous stings. In order to substantiate their claim, the petitioners have failed to lead any cogent and satisfactory evidence on record. Except for the oral evidence, no document has been placed on record by the petitioners that the deceased was engaged as a labourer by the respondent and he (Satwinder Kumar) died during the course of his employment with the respondent.

16. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the impugned award does not need any interference and the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. The instant appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.

( Sushil Kukreja )

Judge 12th October, 2026 (virender)