Delhi District Court
Harpyari vs Haldiram Products Pvt Ltd on 2 August, 2025
In the Court of SCJcumRC, (West District)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Presided by : Ms. Richa Sharma
ESIC No. 02/2019
CNR No. DLWT-03-001033-2019
1. Smt. Harpyari, aged about 45 yrs,
W/o Narender Singh R/o Kaser,
Kaser, Aligarh-202133 (U.P.)
2. Sh. Narender Singh, aged 47 yrs,
S/o Leeladhar, R/o Kaser, Kaser,
Aligarh-202133 (U.P.). .....Petitioners
Versus
1. Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd.
Regd. Office at-1454/2,
Chandni Chowk fountain, Delhi-110006.
Also At-
M/s. Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Prop. / Owner
Unit-II, A-2, 3, 4, Sector-65, Noida (U.P.).
At Posted: Delhi Office Moti Nagar,
Code No. JKPR, Designation: COMMI-III,
DEPARTMENT: Kitchen,
Employee Name: WC-4798,
19A, Shivaji Marg, Najafgarh Road,
Moti Nagar, Delhi-110015.
Digitally signed
2. Employee's State Insurance Corporation RICHA
by RICHA
SHARMA
Rajendra Place, Rajendra Bhawan, New Delhi-110008. SHARMA
Date:
2025.08.02
16:10:04
Insured Person: Satyavir Singh Insurance No.: 6713630178 +0530
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 1/37
Date of Registration: 17.07.2014
Employer's Code No.: 11000139810001102. ....Respondents
CLAIM PETITION/APPLICATION UNDER THE EMPLOYEE'S STATE
INSURANCE ACT, 1948, UNDER SECTION 75 ESI ACT, ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONERS IN VIEW OF DEATH OF SATYAVIR SINGH
DECEASED/WORKMAN
Date of Filing : 04.04.2019
Date of Judgment : 02.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a claim petition / application under Section 75 of Employees State
Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ESI Act) filed on behalf of the
petitioners in view of death of Satyavir Singh, Deceased / Workman.
CASE OF THE PETITIONER
2. It has been averred, that the workman Satyavir Singh had been performing
his duty with due diligence alongwith his friend namely Harvir Singh S/o Sh.
Puran Singh even on the fateful day of 27.11.2016. That on aforesaid date i.e.
27.11.2016 at about 5:30 A.M., both the labourers namely Harvir Singh and
Satyavir Singh were going from their house towards their working place i.e. at
M/s Haldiram shop Janakpuri, Unit-I and when they reached Subhash Nagar Mor
red light pillar No.463 and 464 and were crossing the road towards Subhash
Nagar Bus Stand, suddenly a black colour vehicle (un-known) came at high
speed, being driven rashly and negligently from the side of Tagore Garden and hit
against the pedestrian Satyavir Singh. Due to heavy impact of striking/hitting by
the vehicle, the pedestrian Satyavir Singh fell down on the road and sustained
Digitally
signed by
RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: multiple injuries. The offending driver alongwith his vehicle fled away from the
2025.08.02
16:10:18
+0530
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 2/37
spot. In the mean time many people gathered there. The associate/friend of
Satyavir Singh took him in e-rickshaw to Din Dayal Hospital, Harinagar, Delhi
and narrated the entire incident to police officials present at the hospital. Later,
Satyavir Singh was declared as brought dead and PM report No.2006/2016 dt.
27.11.2016 was conducted and FIR no.889/16 was registered by PS Rajouri
Garden.
3. It has been averred, that the incident occurred during the duty hours as the
deceased left from his home for his duty i.e. for respondent no.1 as he was
employed there. It is further averred, that there is reasonable connection with the
employment as the accident took place while he was reaching to the shop of
respondent no.1/place of employment and during his transit i.e. course of
employment, the said accident occurred. It is also averred, that the
workman/deceased died of an injury arising out of and in the course of
employment.
4. It has been averred, that in this connection an FIR No.889/16 dt.27.11.2016 U/s
279/304 IPC is lodged at P.S. Rajouri Garden. The MLC and PM was conducted
in DDU Hospital New Delhi, vide PM No.2006/16. The concerned I.O. filed the
charge sheet in criminal court against the respondent. The
victim/workman/deceased died during his duty (during the time of reaching on
place duty) as the incident arose out of or in the course of the deceased
employment and thereafter the employer is liable to compensate. It is averred,
that the respondent neither provided any medical assistance nor any kind of
Digitally
signed by
RICHA
compensation
RICHA
SHARMA
or salary to the dependents of workman/deceased.
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
16:10:28
+0530
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 3/37
5. It has been averred, that above said accident of workman Satyavir Singh took
place during and in course of his employment with respondent no.1, who had not
provided any safety measures for saving valuable life of labourers. The workman
died during the course of his duty hours as he had started from his home towards
his duty/place of work. Hence, respondent i.e. the management/master/employer
is liable to compensate to the legal heirs/dependents/representative of the
deceased, who left behind his dependents parents i.e. both mother and father.
6. It has been averred, that the legal heirs of the deceased workman Satyavir Singh
are entitled to get compensation, jointly and severally to the tune of
Rs.24,19,230/- with interest. It is further contended, that the workman Satyavir
Singh was around 23 years of age at the time of accident, having his mother and
father as his dependents, as the deceased was the sole bread earner of the family.
7. It has been further stated, that the deceased salary as per Minimum Wage’s Act
was Rs.10,999/- P.M. and other expenses of tea and conveyance and over time
were also being paid to him from time to time. Accordingly, it is contended that as
per schedule-IV of the Employee Compensation Act, 1923, the factor age of 23
years is 219.95 and according as per section 4(b) of the said act, this is a
fatal/death case in which presumption/assessment may be considered by the Court
in view of death of deceased, thereby amounting the compensation amount to the
tune of Rs.24,19,230/- [Rs.10,999/- X 219.95 (factor)] .
8. It is stated, that the claimant had sent a legal notice dated 27.07.2016 through his
Digitally
advocate by way of courier and the same was duly received by employer
signed by
RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
respondent, but despite the receipt of the said notice, the employer neither replied
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
16:10:38
+0530ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 4/37
to the same nor did it provide for any compensation. It is further averred, that
though an oral offer was made by and on behalf of respondent but later the same
was ignored.
It is further averred, that by applying the notional extension premise, the
place of accident has to be construed as place of duty of the workman, even if he
has not reached the actual place of work and by this notion, the dependents are
entitled to compensation as there is a reasonable connection between the travel
under taken in order to reach the place of work and the course of employment.
9. It has been averred, that in brief the Petitioners are entitled to all benefits,
including pension, job or lumps sum amount under the provision of law and other
benefits/facilities that are for the time being enforced by the law.
10. It is further contented, that under The Employee’s State Insurance Act,
1948, the employee comes under the ambit of insurance policy and accordingly,
the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to compensation from the
employer/management as well as from the ESI, jointly and severally. According,
as per section 75 of ESI Act, the employer and ESI are liable to pay compensation
alongwith interest @ 18% per annum as claimed along with penalty to the
dependents of the deceased.
WRITTEN
Digitally
signed by STATEMENT BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 I.E. HALDIRAM
RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.
2025.08.02
16:10:50
+0530
11. It has been averred, that the deceased Satyavir Singh (employee) met with
an unfortunate accident on 27.11.2016 at around 5:45 AM, while going from his
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 5/37
home towards his working place at Haldiram Shop, Janakpuri Unit 1 but the
respondent no. 1 has denied the said incident for the want of knowledge and has
further averred, that the petitioner be put to strict proof of same.
12. It is further submitted, that the opening time of the restaurant of M/s.
Haldiram Product (P) Ltd. is 8:30 am and the reporting time is 8:00 am and as per
information made available to the answering respondent No.1, the said employee
Satyavir Singh was residing at Raghubir Nagar, which is 7 Km (approx) from the
said restaurant situated at Janak Puri. Therefore, it is contended, that as such the
said accident did not take place during the course of employment as alleged.
Further it is submitted, that as per record maintained by the answering respondent
no.1, Sunday i.e. 27.11.2016 was weekly off for the said employee Satyavir
Singh. Moreover, the said employee was covered under ESI Scheme. Thus the
claim, if any, is payable by respondent no.2 (ESI Corporation). Thus, the
respondent has denied to any claim made by the petitioners.
13. It is further contended, that the petitioner at the time of accident and the
associate/friend of Satyavir Singh took him in e-rickshaw to Deen Dayal
Hospital, Hari Nagar, Delhi and the doctors at the said hospital declared him as
brought dead as per the MLC no.113/46/2016. Further the PM report 2006/2016
dt. 27.11.2016 was conducted. In fact due to hitting/striking by the vehicle
Satyavir Singh fell down on the road and sustained multiple injuries and took his
last breath either on the spot or during his transit to the hospital. As such, there
was no occasion to provide medical assistance to the deceased by the employer
Digitally
and respondent no.1 further stated, that there is no sufficient proof that death was
signed by
RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:caused during course of employment.
2025.08.02
16:10:59
+0530
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 6/37
14. It is further submitted, that the accident did not take place during or in
course of employment, hence the legal heirs of the deceased workman Satyavir
Singh are not entitled to get compensation from answering respondent.
Respondent no.1 further stated, that the age of the deceased and other personal
factors are not relevant in the present matter as on the fateful day when the road
accident took place, it was a weekly off for the deceased. Therefore, it is
contended that the time and place of alleged accident were not in harmony with
the incidence of employment.
15. It is further the defence of respondent no.1, that benefit payment of
dependent benefit is governed by Regulation 58 of ESI (central Rules), 1950 and
Section 52 and 55A of the ESI Act to eligible dependents to avail the same but as
the alleged road accident took place on 27.11.2016, being weekly off for the
deceased, the entitlement to dependent benefit under ESI Act does not per se
accrue.
Further it is submitted, that neither the notice was issued to the answering
respondent No.1 nor the same was received by it as alleged and the petitioners be
put to strict proof of the same.
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 2/ESIC
16. It is the defence of the respondent no.2, that for eligibility to Dependent
Benefit to the dependents of deceased under Section 2 (6A) of ESI Act, as per
Section 52 & 55A read with Section 2(8) of ESI Act, the deceased at first has to
Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA be an employee under the Act, under the insurable employment and must have
SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
16:11:09
+0530ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 7/37
died in accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The very fact of
starting at 5.30 am on 27/11/2016 for duty for which the reporting time started
from 8 am stands unexplained as the deceased had to cover a distance of 7
Kilometer from home (Raghubir Nagar) to shop (Janakpuri west) and therefore,
the reason for leaving as early as 5:30 AM stands unexplained.
17. It is further contended, that 27/11/2016 was a weekly off for the deceased
employee and therefore, the said road accident can not be termed as employment
injury arising out of and in due course of employment.
18. It is further submitted, that the death of the deceased employee has no
causal connection with employment, as he was on weekly off and was not on
route to workplace from home. The legal requirement of death in an accident
arising out of and in the course of employment has not been fulfilled for the
principal of notional extension to apply.
19. It is also the defence of respondent no.2, that the respondent no.1 in its
letter dated 15/04/2019 has categorically denied of deceased employee coming to
his duty place on the date of accident i.e. 27/11/2016 as it was his weekly off. It is
also stated, that the deceased employee was having no reasonable nexus of time
and place of accident with his employment on the date of the accident i.e.,
27/11/2016 and is therefore, not entitled to dependent benefit much less
compensation. Both the preconditions i.e. ‘during the employment’ and ‘in course
out of employment’ have to be satisfied before employment injury can be
admitted but so is not the case in hand as the duty commenced from 8 am and
Digitally
signed by
RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA same can not be presumed to have been started from 5.30 am and that too on a
Date:
2025.08.02
16:11:23
+0530ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 8/37
weekly off day. Therefore, so being the case, the road accident neither occurred
in course of employment nor it has its origin in the employment.
20. It is further stated, that the respondent No.1 has not filed any accident
report online or otherwise as provided under Reg 77 of ESI (G) Regulations, 1950
to Respondent No. 2/ESIC, since the alleged accident neither took place in course
of employment nor out of employment. The starting time at 5.30 am from house
for reporting duty time at 8 am on weekly off does not satisfy the sine qua non of
in the course of employment, so no question of invoking presumption u/s 51 A
regarding ‘out of employment’ either, considering the further material fact that
normal and fast route from Raghubir Nagar to Janakpuri is straight or via Tagore
Garden and not Subhash Nagar Mor, depending on transport used.
21. It is submitted, that benefit payment of dependent benefit is governed by
Regulation 58 of ESI (central Rules), 1950 and Section 52 and ESI Act to 55A of
the eligible dependents. Since the alleged road accident on 27/11/2016 not only
happened on weekly off of the deceased but also the time and place of accident
are out of conjunction with employment, thereby dis-entitling the dependents of
the deceased from the benefit under ESI Act or compensation under law.
It is further submitted, that the unfortunate road accident took place on
27/11/2016 and the same has no causal connectivity and affinity with employment
as it occurred on the date that was a weekly off for the deceased.
22. It is averred, that the present road accident case being the one not following
within the ambit of during the employment and in course of the employment,
Digitally signed
by RICHA
SHARMA
RICHA
therefore,
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02 is not covered as Employment Injury as the deceased was exposed to
16:11:38
+0530ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 9/37
road risk qua public person which contains no element of employment, as such is
not eligible to pension, job or lump sum as claimed by the petitioners. The
respondent no.2 has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
titled as “Shakuntala Chandrakant Shrestha Vs Prabhakar Gawli“, wherein it
has been held that death arising out of and in course of employment is not
automatic but has to be established.
23. It is further contended by respondent no.2, that the road accident cases are
fully covered under M.V. Act, compensation if any due is payable to the
petitioners under the said Act.
Replication on behalf of Petitioner/Claimant to the written statement of
Respondent no. 1 and 2.
24. Replication has been filed by the petitioner to the written statement filed by
the respondents, vide which the facts of the petition have been reiterated and the
contentions made by the respondents have been vehemently denied.
25. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed :-
1. Whether the petition is entitled to recover compensation Rs.24,19,230.05P
along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till
realization? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to penality @ 50% on the claimed
compensation amount of Rs.24,19,230.05P?OPP
Relief.signed
3. Digitally
by RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
16:11:49 +0530ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 10/37
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
26. In order to prove their case, the petitioners examined Dr. Neeraj Kumar
Garg, Sr. Medical Officer as PW-1. He relied upon postmortem report which was
exhibited as Ex.PW1/A.
27. Petitioners further examined Sh. Harvir S/o Sh. Puran Singh as PW-2,
who filed his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.PW-2/A. He relied upon copy of
Aadhar Card, exhibited as Ex.PW2/1 and copy of official ID Card exhibited as
Ex.PW2/2.
28. In support of their contentions, the petitioner no.1 also examined
herself as PW-3 and she tendered in her evidence her duly sworn in affidavit
exhibited as Ex.PW3/A. In her testimony, she relied upon the following
documents:-
Ex. PW-3/1 Certified copy of application dated 26.08.2019 for
providing of certified copy.
Ex. PW-3/2 Certified copy of order of Labour Court regarding
proceedings as previously filed before Labour Court.
Ex. PW-3/3 Certified copy of check list with petition in Labour
Court.
Ex. PW-3/4 Certified copy of reply of notice filed by Haldiram
Digitally
Products i.e respondent no.1. signed by
RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
Ex. PW-3/5 Certified copy of rejoinder filed by deponent. SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
Ex. PW-3/6 Certified copy of E-Pachan Card issued by ESI. 16:11:59
+0530ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 11/37
Ex. PW-3/7 Certified copy of employee income statement issued
by Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd.
Ex. PW-3/8 Certified copy regarding contribution history.
Ex. PW-3/9 Certified copy of legal notice sent by petitioner.
Ex. PW-3/10 Certified copy of Election ID.
Ex. PW-3/11 Certified copy of ADHAAR Card of petitioner no. 1.
Ex. PW-3/12 Certified copy of death certificate of Sh. Satyavir
Singh.
Ex. PW-3/13 Certified copy of ADHAAR Card of deceased Sh.
Satyavir Singh.
Ex. PW-3/14 Certified copy of I.D Card issued by Haldiram Snacks
Pvt. Ltd.
Ex. PW-3/15 Certified copy of pay slip issued by Haldiram Products
Pvt. Ltd.
Ex. PW-3/16 Certified copy of affidavit of petitioner no. 2 regarding
employment with respondent no. 1.
Ex. PW-3/17 Certified copy of post office passbook of deponent.
Ex. PW-3/18 Certified copy of bank passbook of SBI of petitioner
no. 2.
Ex. PW-3/19 Certified copy of miscellaneous papers including
(collectively) Hawalgi, FIR , Asal Tehreer, MLC, Death Summary,
Postmortem report, Site plan, Statement under Section
161 Cr. P.C, ADHAAR Card of deceased, ADHAAR Digitally
signed by
RICHA
Card of both the petitioners and summons etc. with RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
final charge-sheet. 16:12:24
+0530ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 12/37
29. In support of their contentions, petitioner no.2 also examined himself
as PW-4 and he tendered in his evidence his duly sworn in affidavit exhibited
as Ex.PW4/A. In his testimony, he relied upon photocopy of letter dated
10.12.2016 which was exhibited as Ex.PW4/1 and photocopy of dead body
receipt of Satyabir which was exhibited as Ex.PW4/2.
30. Petitioners further examined Sh.Ravikant Shrivastwa as PW-5,
who relied upon the E-Pehchan Card and contribution history about the
deceased Satyavir. PW-5 further relied upon the contribution deposited with
ESI and EPF contribution fund, Aadhar Card of Satyavir Singh, Payslip of
deceased namely Satyavir Singh and attendance register i.e. Master roll and all
the above mentioned documents were collectively exhibited as Ex.PW5/1
(Colly.7).
31. Petitioners also examined SI Manoj Kumar, PS-EOW as PW-6, who
relied upon copy of DAR report filed in FIR No.889/16, PS- Rajouri Garden (filed
by the petitioner in the present suit) along with statement of witnesses which was
marked as Mark A.
32. All the witnesses were subjected to litmus test of cross-examination
so conducted by Ld. Counsels for the respondents.
33. Thereafter, the petitioners evidence was closed vide order dated 22.02.2023.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE Digitally signed
RICHA by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
16:12:33 +0530
34. In support of its defence, the respondent no. 2 examined Sh. Jai
Shankar Tiwari S/o late Sh. Babu Lal Tiwari as RW1, who filed his evidence of
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 13/37
affidavit as Ex.RW1/A and relied upon the Inspection report dated 15.04.2019,
relating to duty record of the deceased employee (Colly.).
RW1 was cross-examined at length by the Counsel for the plaintiff.
35. Thereafter, the respondent evidence was closed on 24.03.2023 and
matter was listed for final arguments.
36. I have heard the final arguments advanced at length by the Ld.
Counsels for both the parties and have further perused the evidence at length
carefully. My issue wise findings are as:-
ANALYSIS, ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
37. The following issues were framed :-
Issues No. 1 & 2
1. Whether the petition is entitled to recover compensation Rs.24,19,230.05P
along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till
realization? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to penalty @ 50% on the claimed
compensation amount of Rs.24,19,230.05P?OPP
3. Relief.
The onus to prove both the above issues was upon the petitioner. Both the
issues are taken up together as they involve common question of law and fact.
38. The most paramount and principle consideration for awarding
compensation in cases where the ESIC is the party is that the Court need to see
Digitally signed
RICHA by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
16:12:42 +0530
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 14/37
whether the deceased i.e. the employee in question died during the course of his
employment. Therefore, what is to be seen by this Court is that the time and the place
of the incident was intendum with the employment and that the deceased died in the
course of his employment or while he was going to his office or was on his way back
from his duty. In the light of the above facts, it is pellucid to note that the deceased
employee in the case in hand had no reasonable nexus with respect to the time and
place of the incident/accident and the office duty time of the employment on the
alleged date of the accident i.e. 27.11.2016. There are primarily two pre-conditions
i.e. in course of employment and out of employment that ought to be satisfied to
bring any fatal accident as main injury falling under Section2(8) read with Section
51A of the ESIC Act 1948. The said sections are reproduced as under:
“Section 2(8) of the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI)
Act, 1948 defines “employment injury” as a personal
injury to an employee caused by accident or
occupational disease arising out of and in the course
of employment. Section 51A of the same Act provides a
presumption that if an accident occurs during the
course of employment, it is also presumed to have
Digitally
signed by
RICHA
arisen out of the employment, unless evidence to the
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02 contrary is presented"
16:12:52
+0530
Now, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the
law enunciated as above, it categorically stands deduced that as per the documents
placed on record by the petitioner as well as by the respondent no.1 i.e. Haldiram, that
the duty hours of the deceased commenced from 08:00 AM, the same per se can not beESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 15/37
presumed to have commenced or started from 05:30 AM in the morning and more so on
a day which was designated as a weekly off for the deceased employee in question.
39. Therefore, substantially taking note of the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is imperative to note, that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have proved,
that on the alleged date of the accident i.e. 27.11.2016, the deceased was not on his
weekly off and was actually going for his daily duty. It is pertinent to note, that as per
the attendance sheet annexed on record and proved in evidence by exhibiting the same
as Ex.RW1/1, it stands settled, that the duty time of the deceased employee was from
08:00 AM and the alleged date of the accident was that of a weekly off for him and
therefore, the onus shifted upon the petitioners to prove, that on the alleged date of the
accident, the deceased along with co-worker was called specifically for extra duty as
averred by the petitioners in their petition.
40. It is apropos to note, that apart from the bare bald averments to the effect
that the deceased was called specifically on a weekly off as a part of his over duty, the
said fact is neither proved by any documentary evidence nor by any other cogent piece
of evidence. It is further material to note, that in the light of the Section 91 and 92 of
Indian Evidence Act reproduced as under, no oral evidence can be given of any fact
which is otherwise documented, unless it falls within the exception as entailed in the
section.
(i) Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that, “when terms of a
contract or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the
form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be
reduced
Digitallyto the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of
signed
by RICHA
RICHAsuchSHARMA
contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
16:13:05
+0530ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 16/37
document itself or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary
evidence is admissible under the provisions herein before contained”. Thus, on the basis
of the above codified law, it is explicit that no oral evidence can be given of any term of
an agreement otherwise than explicitly permitted by law. Therefore, in the light of the
written attendance sheet, petitioner was explicitly barred by provision of Section 91 to
lead any evidence with respect to the contents otherwise embodied in the said document
unless the same is permitted as per proviso to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 but even to that extent no evidence has been led by the petitioners to enable them
to establish that their case falls under any of the proviso appended with Section 92 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The contents of Section 92 of The Indian Evidence Act,
1872 are reproduced as under:-
(ii) “Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that, “when the terms of any
such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to
be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section
(Section 91) no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as
between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the
purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms:”
(iii) Now, once a written document i.e. the attendance sheet in the present case is
not denied or objected to by the petitioners, the latter cannot be allowed to rebut or
controvert that document by oral evidence and that too only in form of self serving
statements of the interested witnesses of the deceased to the effect that on the fateful day
despite the same being a weekly off for the deceased, the latter was called for extra
work/over duty by respondent no.1, more so, in a scenario where the written record as
adduced and relied upon by respondent no.1 i.e. Haldiram speaks to the contrary.
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
16:13:27 +0530
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 17/37
(iv) At this stage court deems it fit to place reliance on the Judgement of ” Roop
Kumar vs. Mohan Thedani (2003) 6 SCC 595, the Hon’ble Supreme Court commented
on section 91 of the Evidence Act by observing that:-
“13………This section merely forbids proving the contents of a writing
otherwise than by writing itself; it is covered by the ordinary rule of law of
evidence, applicable not merely to solemn writings of the sort named but to others
known sometimes as the best-evidence rule. It is in reality declaring a doctrine of the
substantive law, namely, in the case of a written contract, that all proceedings and
contemporaneous oral expressions of the thing are merged in the writing or displaced
by it. (See Thayer’s Preliminary Law on Evidence, Wigmore’s Evidence,
0.2406)……”
(emphasis supplied)
(v) The court further observed that:-
“16……….. This rule is based upon an assumed intention on the part of the
contracting parties, evidenced by the existence of the written contract, to place
themselves above the uncertainties of oral evidence and on a disinclination of the courts
to defeat this object. When persons express their agreements in writing, it is for the
express purpose of getting rid of any indefiniteness and to put their ideas in such shape
that there can be no misunderstanding, which so often occurs when reliance is placed
upon oral statements. Written contracts presume deliberation on the part of the
contracting parties and it is natural they should be treated with careful consideration by
the courts and with a disinclination to disturb the conditions of matters as embodied in
them by the act of the parties. (See McKelvey’s Evidence, p.294) . As observed in
Greenlear’s Evidence, p. 563, one of the most common and important of the concrete
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMASHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
16:13:37 +0530ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 18/37
rules presumed under the general notion that the best evidence must be produced and
that one with which the phrase best evidence is now exclusively associated is the rule
that when the contents of a writings are to be proved, the writing itself must be produced
before the court or its absence accounted for before testimony to its contents is admitted.
17. It is likewise a general and most inflexible rule that whenever written instruments
are appointed, either by the requirement of law, or by contract of parties, to be the
repositories and memorials of truth, any other evidence is excluded from being used
either as a substitute for such instrument, or to contradict or alter them. This is a
matter both of principle and policy. It is of principle because such instrument are in
their own nature and origin, entitled to a much higher degree of credit than parol
evidence. it is of policy because it would be attended with great mischief if those
instruments, upon which mens rights depended, were liable to be impeached by loose
collateral evidence”.
(vi) Therefore, from the above quoted observations made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and after going through the provisions of section 91 and 92 of Indian
Evidence Act 1872, petitioners can not be allowed to retract or deny or controvert a
written documents by leading oral evidence. Thus, it was imperative upon petitioners to
have proved by cogent evidence that the attendance sheet is speaking contrary to the real
fact but as per the factual matrix of the petitioners case, they have not questioned the
attendance sheet produced in evidence by the respondents.
41. Once a documentary evidence stand proved on record, the same can be
eschewed only by way of another cogent documentary evidence unless and until the case
falls within any of the exception enumerated under the said section but so is not the case
in hand. It is an admitted case even of the petitioner that the alleged date of the accident
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
16:13:47 +0530
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 19/37
was the one of a weekly off for the deceased, but that the deceased was specifically
called for over duty on the said day and therefore, the onus shifted upon the petitioner to
prove the same but there is no evidence furnished on record to this effect.
42. It is apposite to note, that PW-6 categorically admitted in his cross-
examination, that the alleged accident took place at 05:45 AM on the fateful day of
27.11.2016 and the said statement was recorded at 09:30 AM, on that very same day.
and therefore, in the light of the said statement being given by the co-worker of the
deceased, who was accompanying him on the very same day and that to at the time of
the alleged accident, it is most certain that the deceased along with his co-worker had
left his house at 5:45 AM but it is impossible to perceive that they both left for
respondent no.1’s shop as at the cost of repetition it is being stated, that the said shop
was only at a distance of 7 km from the house of the deceased and therefore, for a
reporting time of 8:00 AM by no stretch of imagination, the deceased could have left for
his work/duty with respondent no.1 at 5:45 AM. It simpilictor deduced, that the
deceased though had left his house with his co-worker but the same was not for his duty
with respondent no.1.
Even otherwise, the fateful day was admittedly a weekly off for the
deceased and therefore, to say that the fatal road accident arose out of employment or in
course of employment would be wrong.
43. It is further, not out of the place to mention, that respondent no.1 i.e.
Haldiram for the reason best known to it did not comply with the Regulation 77 and 79
as well as Regulation 81 of the ESI(General) Regulation Act 1950. The same are
reproduced as under:-
Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
16:13:56 +0530
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 20/37
“Regulation 77,79 and 81 of the Employee’s State Insurance
(General) Regulations, 1950 deal with the reporting of an
employee’s death due to employment injury, the issuance of a
death certificate, and the submission of a claim for dependents’
benefit, respectively. Specifically, Regulation 77 outlines the
procedure for reporting the death of an insured person resulting
from an employment injury, while Regulation 769 addresses the
issuance of a death certificate following such an event. Regulation
81 focuses on the process for dependents to submit a claim for
benefits in the event of the insured person’s death due to
employment injury.”
“Regulation 77: mandates that the employer must report the
death of an insured person resulting from an employment injury to
the relevant authorities. The report should include details about
the incident, the insured person, and any other relevant
information as required by the ESI regulations.”
“Regulation 79: mandates the report of death due to
employment injury, this regulation out;lines the process for
issuing a death certificate. The appropriate authority, typically
the ESI Corporation, will issue a death certificate to the
dependents or other concerned parties. This certificate is crucial
for further actions like claiming dependents’ benefits.”
“Regulation 81 specifies that the procedure for dependents to
claim benefits after the death of an insured person due to
Digitally
signed by
RICHA
employment injury. It details the necessary documents, forms, and
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
16:14:05
timelines for submitting the claim to the ESI Corporation. The
+0530ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 21/37
claim will be processed based on the evidence provided and the
applicable regulations.”
It is a matter of record, that neither respondent no.1 nor the dependents of the
deceased employee filed an accident report online nor in any other way provided the
same under the regulation 77 of ESI(G) regulation 1950. Therefore, it stands deduced
by implication, that the respondent no.2 i.e. ESIC did not do the compliance as required
to be done under ESI(General) Regulations, 1950 as in the present case, neither the
accident took place in the course of employment nor did it take place out of the
employment.
44. It is apposite to note, that the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently harped
upon the doctrine of notional extension of time of employment, and its applicability in
the present case. Further he has placed reliance on various judgments of the Hon’ble
High Court and the Apex Court, whereby the said concept is dealt and explained in
details. It is material to note, that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the said doctrine is legally inadmissible as though it is averred that the
deceased employee was commuting on the fateful day from his residence to the place of
employment, but the said day was his weekly off and therefore the alleged time and
place of accident is not in harmony, with the incident of employment as it was a weekly
off for the deceased. The employee could not be presumed to be going for his
employment or traveling out of employment. Therefore, the benefit to the dependents of
the deceased under Section 2(1)(A) of ESI Act, as per Section 52 read with Section 2(8)
of ESI Act and rule 58 of ESI(General) rules 1950 is legally not tenable.
Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
16:14:15 +0530
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 22/37
45. It is further material to note, that none of the petitioner witnesses as
examined by the petitioner in its evidence have testified themselves as eye witnesses to
the fact that the deceased was actually heading towards his duty place on 27.11.2016. At
the cost of brevity, it is being stated that neither any cogent nor any reliable piece of
evidence have been placed before the Court to prove the petitioner’s averments, that the
fateful day of the incident was not a weekly off and the deceased was actually heading
for his job. The petitioner has simplicitor dwelled upon self serving statements tendered
in evidence by the interested witnesses. It was imperative for the M/S Haldiram Snacks
Private Limited i.e. RW-1 to have stepped into the witness box and furnished to the
effect that despite being a weekly off, the deceased employee was called for extra duty
hours but so is not the case in hand.
46. Another facet which calls for deliberation is, that there has been a delay in
filing the case as the same was filed in 2019, thereby seeking a relief qua a cause of
action that arose in 2016. There is nothing on record to substantiate, that the petitioner
approached the respondent no. 2 i.e. ESIC directly except through the Court notice,
during this entire period of delay. The delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching
to the Court without raising any claim before the ESIC further hints that the alleged
accident was a road accident having no bearing on ESIC in as much as it covers only
employment connected accident and not general public road accident. In this regard the
deposition of PW-5 holds relevancy as the information of the said accident was never
forwarded to the ESIC and the same was received by the latter only through Court
summons pursuant to the institution of the present case.
The said fact stands proved by RW-1 as he deposed in his irrefutable
testimony that respondent no.1 ESIC was neither approached by the petitioner nor by
M/S Haldiram Snacks Private Limited i.e. the employer of the deceased employee in
Digitally signed
RICHA by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
16:14:22 +0530
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 23/37
question, but that the ESIC stood informed only through Court notice. Therefore, the
deceased was indisputably as per the evidence furnished on record, shown on his weekly
off on the fateful day of the incident, thereby having no connection of the alleged
accident with the course of the employment or being occurred out of employment.
47. It is material to note, that the petitioner had initially approached another Court
under Motor Vehicle Act (M.V. Act) and subsequently they filed the case against the
ESIC in 2019 and this further hints towards the fact that the accident was related to
general public road accident and not employment related case as had the case been
falling in the said bracket they would have approached the Court at the first instance.
The petitioner cannot per-se be allowed to treat Respondent No. 1 i.e. Haldiram as
scape-goat to bear the blame of the alleged accident, moreso when the respondent no. 1
outrightly denied that neither the deceased was called for over time on the fateful date of
the accident i.e. 27.11.2016 nor was the said date a day of his regular duty, thereby
clearly falsifying the testimony of PW Harvir, i.e. the friend of deceased workmen
Satyavir. No such alleged communication dated 10.12.2016 by the petitioner or
respondent no. 2 i.e Haldiram was ever given or served upon ESIC regarding the
alleged accident as no vital information inorder to substantiate the said averments stands
furnished on record of the Court. Infact it is the ESIC who had conducted an enquiry of
the accident that occured on 27.11.2016.
It is material to note, that though PW-5 Ravikant Sriavasatava being a summoned
witness for the petitioner deposed in his examination in chief, that he had knowledge of
the alleged accident as the information about the same was received by his office from
Haldiram products regarding the accident that occurred with respect to their
worker/employee/deceased Satyavir. He further went on to depose, that he had given the
Digitally signed
by RICHA
SHARMA
RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
16:14:29
+0530
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 24/37
intimation about the alleged accident even to ESIC but he could not stand this ground on
being subjected to the litmus test of cross examination.
48. On being subjected to cross examination on 22.02.2023, PW-5 deposed that
he had orally informed at ESIC office at Morigate on the next date i.e 28.11.2016 about
the accident but thereafter in the same breath also admitted that there is nothing on
record placed by him to prove that any such information was given to ESIC. He further
mitigated his deposition made in his examination in chief by deposing in his cross
examination, that he did not remember correctly the name of the branch manager of the
above said Mori gate to whom the said information about the alleged accident was
given. Thereafter, the witness though stated that the name of the manager was Shri
Sandeep but the said Mr. Sandeep never stepped into the witness box to prove/verify the
version of PW-5.
49. At this stage, the Court deems it fit to discuss the law of Notional
extension and further its applicability to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
The words ” arising out of employment “and ” in the course of the employment” are
infact two different phrases and have to be understood as such. If the accident had
occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of employment, the claim shall
succeed unless, of course, the workman had exposed himself to an added peril by his
own imprudent act. The phrase ” in the course of employment” suggests that the injury
must be caused during the currency of the employment, whereas the expression ” out of
employment” conveys the idea that there must be a causal connection between the
employment and the injury caused to the workmen as a result of accident.
Digitally signed
by RICHA
SHARMA
RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
16:14:36
+0530
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 25/37
50. Now, in the light of the law reproduce as above and applying the same to
the facts of the present case, prima facie there is material available in form of attendance
register, salary sheet, appointment letter, photographs, inquiry report dated 15.04.2019
collectively exhibited as RW1/1, to show that the deceased workmen had exposed
himself to an unforeseen, thereby bearing no reasonable risk incidental to his
employment as he was not suppose to be on his duty on the fateful day, being his weekly
off.
51. Court seeks assistance from the judgment of Saurashtra Salt
Manufacturing Vs BaiValu Raja ( AIR1958 SC881), whereby it was held, that when
an employ is commuting to and from the place of work and there is an accident, such an
accident cannot be said to have arisen out of the course of employment. The relevant
portions of the judgment in Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Company Case (Supra) read
as under
“As a rule, the employment of a workman does not commence
until he has reached the place of employment and does not
continue when he has left the place of employment, the journey to
and from the place of employment being excluded. It is now well-
settled, however, that this is a subject to the theory of notional
extension of the employer’s premises so as to include an area
which the workman passes and re-passes in going to and in
leaving the actual place of work. There may be some reasonable
extension in both time and place and a workman may be regarded
as in the course of his employment even though he had not
reached or had left his employer’s premises. The facts and
Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
Date: circumstances of each case will have to be examined very
SHARMA 2025.08.02
16:14:42
+0530ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 26/37
carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of
and in the course of the employment of a workman, keeping in
view at all times this theory of notional extension.
52. 11. Buckley, LJ., in Pierce v. Provident Clothing and Supply Co. Ltd.
((1911) 1 KB 997), made the following observations:
“The words ‘out of necessarily involve the idea that the accident
arises out of a risk incidental to the employment. An accident
arises out of the employment where it results from a risk
incidental to the employment, as distinguished from a risk
common to all mankind, although the risk incidental to the
employment may include a risk common to all mankind.”
53. English courts have also held that injuries to employees on their way back
home fall within those arising out of employment. In Lawrence v. George Matthews Ltd.
[(1929) 1 KB 1], the deceased was employed as a commercial traveler by coal
merchants, who paid him a commission for all orders obtained for them. While on his
way home on his motorcycle after completing a trip, he was struck fatally by a falling
tree which was blown down by a gale. In proceedings for compensation, the Court of
Appeal held by a majority that the accident arose out of the employment of the deceased
on the ground that the deceased’s employment brought him to a spot which, owing to the
existence of the tree, had quality that resulted in danger. The fact that the tree fell due to
forces of nature was immaterial, as the immediate cause of the accident was the falling
of the tree,
Digitally signed
RICHA by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
16:14:50 +0530
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 27/37
Indian Courts have also expounded upon the phrase ‘arising out of and in the course of
employment’ in great detail.
54. In the case of B.E.S.T. Undertaking v. Agnes (AIR 1964 SC 193:), this Court laid
down as under:
“Under Section 3(1) of the Act the injury must be caused to the
workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of his
employment. The question, when does an employment begin and
when does it cease, depends upon the facts of each case. But the
Courts have agreed that the employment does not necessarily end
when the “down tool” signal is given or when the workman leaves
the actual workshop where he is working. There is a notional
extension as both the entry and exit by time and space. The scope
of such extension “must necessarily depend on the circumstances
of a given case. An employment may end or may begin not only
when the employee begins to work or leaves this tools but also
when he used the means of access and egress to and from the
place of employment. A contractual duty or obligation on the part
of an employer to use only a particular means of transport
extends the area, of the field of employment to the course of the
said transport. Though at the beginning the word “duty” has been
strictly construed, the later decisions have liberalized this
Digitally
signed by
RICHA
concept. A theoretical option to take an alternative route may not
RICHA SHARMAdetract from such a duty if the accepted one is of proved necessity
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
16:14:57
+0530or of practical compulsion. But none of the decisions cited at the
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 28/37
Bar deals with a transport service operating over a large area
like Bombay. They are, therefore, of little assistance, except
insofar as they laid down the principles of general application.
Indeed, some of the law Lords expressly excluded from the scope
of their discussion cases where the exigencies of work compel an
employee to traverse public streets and other public places. The
problem that now arises before us is a novel one and is not
covered by authority.”
55. The High Court relied upon the judgment above in the case of Saurashtra
Salt Manufacturing Co. v. BaiValu Raja (AIR 1958 SC 881:) concluded that when an
employee is commuting to and from the place of work and there is an accident, such an
accident cannot be said to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. This
Court has rendered judgment though based on the facts and circumstances of that case,
but ratio is attracted to facts of the case under adjudication.
56. The case of Mackinnon Machenzie& Co. (P) Ltd. v. Ibrahim
MahmmedIssak [(1969)2 SCC 607] is also relevant to understand the meaning of
arising out of employment. Justice Ramaswami, delivering the judgment for a three
Judge Bench of this Court, held:
“…the words ‘arising out of employment’ are understood to mean
that ‘during the course of the employment, injury has resulted
from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which,
unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to
Digitally
signed by
believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered. In other
RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: words, there must be a causal relationship between the accident
2025.08.02
16:15:03
+0530ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 29/37
and the employment. The expression ‘arising out of employment’
is again not confined to the mere nature of the employment. The
expression applies to employment as such to its nature, its
conditions, its obligations and its incidents. If by reason of any of
those factors the workman is brought within the zone of special
danger the injury would be one which arises ‘out of employment’.
To put it differently if the accident had occurred on account of a
risk which is an incident of the employment, the claim for
compensation, must succeed, unless of course the workman has
exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act…”
57. This Court in Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation
v. Francis De Costa 1996(4) S.C.T. 228: [(1996) 6 SCC 1:], laid down three principles
for the claimants to prove before they can claim compensation under Section 2(8) of the
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948: “(1) there was an accident, (2) the accident had a
causal connection with the employment and (3) the accident must have been suffered in
course of employment.”
As Section 2(8) of that Act is in parimateria with Section 3(1) of the Act, these
principles are relevant for cases under the latter. No causal connection with the
employment in the present case.
58. Again, in the case of Union of India v. Surendra Pandey, 2015(2) S.C.T.
497: [(2015) 13 SCC 625:] this Court has explained the principle of notional extension
of employment giving examples as under:
Digitally
signed by
“It was also pointed out by Lord Denning in the aforesaid case of
RICHA
RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA
Date: R. v. National Insurance Commr., ex p Michael that the extension
2025.08.02
16:15:11
+0530ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 30/37
of the meaning of the phrase “in the course of his employment”
has taken place in some cases but in all those cases, the workman
was at the premises where he or she worked and was injured
while on a visit to the canteen or some other place for a break.
The test of what was “reasonably incidental” to employment, may
be extended even to cases while an employee is sent on an errand
by the employer outside the factory premises. But in such cases, it
must be shown that he was doing something incidental to his
employment. There may also be cases where an employee has to
go out of his work place in the usual course of his employment.
Latham, C.J. in South Maitland Railways Pvt. Ltd. v. James
observed that when the workmen on a hot day in course of their
employment had to go for short time to get some cool water to
drink so as to enable them to continue to work without which they
could not have otherwise continued, they were in such cases
doing something in the course of their employment when they
went out for water.”
59. Now in the backdrop of the law reproduced as above, this Court proceeds
with the evaluation of the evidences as under :
The chief witness examined by the petitioner in her evidence is PW-2 i.e.
Harvir Singh. On the fateful day, Harvir was accompanying the deceased Satyavir as the
former was working as a cook with the respondent no. 1 at Janakpuri outlet and the
deceased was helper there. It is pellucid to note, that PW-2 categorically admitted in his
cross-examination, that he was not aware of the facts that on the fateful day i.e. 26.11.
Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
16:15:20 +0530
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 31/37
2016 the deceased was having his weekly off day. The relevant excerpt of his cross-
examination to this effect is as under :
” I do not know whether on 27.11.2016 was weekly off day by deceased Sh.
Satyavir Singh.”
60. It is further vital to note, that PW-2 further admitted in his cross
examination, that he did not inform the ESIC of the accident dated 27.11.2016. He
further deposed, that he cannot say, if respondent no.1 i.e M/s Haldiram Snacks Private
Limited informed the ESIC or not and the relevant excerpts of his cross examination to
this effect are as under:
“it is true that we did not inform ESIC about the accident dated 27.11.2016. I can
not say the defendant no. 1 i.e. M/S Haldiram Snacks Private Limited informed the ESIC
or not.”
61. Thus, from the entire examination in chief as well as cross examination of
PW-2 nothing can be deduced to state with conclusitivity that the deceased was heading
towards his duty on the fateful day, moreso, under circumstances where PW-2 had
himself deposed in his cross examination, that he was not aware if on the fateful day the
deceased was actually having a weekly off or not.
62. The petitioner examined herself as PW-3, being the mother of the deceased
Sh. Satyavir. Admittedly PW-3 was not present in Delhi on the fateful day as she was at
Aligarh and the alleged accident did not take place in her presence. The relevant
excerpts of her cross examination to this effect are as under:-
Digitally signed
by RICHA
SHARMA
RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
16:15:29
+0530
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 32/37
“i was not in Delhi on the day of accident of my son i.e. 27.11.2016. It is true that
I was at Aligarh on 27.11.2016. It is true that the accident of my son Sh. Satyavir Singh
did not happen in my presence”
63. It is further material to note, that PW-3 stated in her cross examination, that
the contents of her affidavit i.e. PW3/A were told to her by PW-2 i.e. Sh. Harvir Singh
and further whatever she had stated in Para 2 of her affidavit regarding over time duty of
her son along with PW-2 on 27.11.2016 was told to her by Harvir Singh , meaning
thereby that the fact regarding the deceased being heading towards his overtime duty as
alleged on the fateful day was not within her knowledge and was hearsay evidence as
told to her by PW-2. The relevant excerpts of her cross examination to this effect are as
under:
“Whatever I have stated in my affidavit Ex. PW3/A with regard to incident
happened on 27.11.2016 have been told to me by Sh. Harvir Singh. Whatever I have
stated in my affidavit Ex. PW3/A in para no. 2 regarding overtime duty of my son along
with Sh. Harvir Singh on 27.11.2016 have been told to me by Sh. Harvir Singh”
64. It is further categorically admitted by PW-3 in her cross examination, that
the fact regarding a call being received from one Sh. Arun, official of Haldiram by her
son for an overtime, was a fact that was not mentioned in her affidavit. The relevant
excerpts of her cross examination to this effect are as under:
“Sh. Arun Verma, official of Haldiram called my son on overtime duty on
27.11.2016 but the same is not mentioned in my affidavit.”
Digitally signed
by RICHA
SHARMA
RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
16:15:37
+0530ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 33/37
65. Therefore, from the entire testimony of PW-3, it safely stand deduced, that
she has no personal knowledge about the accident, the date and the time of the accident
and also of the fact that her son i.e. Sh. Satyavir Singh was heading for any overtime
duty on the fateful day or not as the entire information was supplied to him by PW-2,
thereby making it an hearsay evidence thus not admissible.
66. Another witness examined by petitioner in her evidence is PW-4 i.e. the
husband of the petitioner and the father of deceased Sh. Satyavir, namely Sh. Narander.
The deposition of PW-3, i.e. the petitioner and PW-4 are on the same lines as even PW-4
was not present in Delhi on the fateful day and was at his village and further the entire
information regarding the alleged accident was provided to him by PW-2 i.e. Harvir
Singh . The relevant excerpts of his cross examination to this effect are as under :
“On 27.11.2016, I was at my village. No accident had taken place in my presence.
One Harvir Singh has told me as to what stated in para 1 of the affidavit.”
Therefore, PW-4 also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner.
67. Thereafter, PW-5 was examined and though he stated, that respondent no. 1
had orally informed ESIC office at Mori Gate on the next date of the accident i.e.
28.11.2016 but admittedly respondent no. 1 had placed nothing on record to prove that
the said information was duly disseminated to respondent no. 2 i.e. ESIC. The relevant
excerpts of his cross examination to this effect are as under :
” we have orally informed the ESIC office at Mori Gate on the next date of
accident i.e. 28.11.2016. It is correct that there is nothing on record of having informed
ESIC. I do not remember correctly the name of the branch manager of the above said
Mori Gate, whom information was given.”
Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
16:15:47 +0530
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 34/37
68. It is apposite to note, that PW-5 further stated in his cross examination, that
the victim was on weekly day off on 27.11.2016. Thus, even the deposition of PW-5
does not lend any credence to the version of the petitioner.
69. Thereafter, petitioner examined PW-6 i.e. SI Manoj Kumar. The said
witness had deposed simply on the basis of the information that was provided to him by
PW-2 and he further admitted in his cross examination that he was told by the witness
Mr. Harvir Singh that the victim was proceeding towards his work place. The relevant
excerpts of his cross examination to this effect are as under :
“it is correct that I was told by the witnees Mr. Harvir Singh that the victim was
proceeding to his work place.”
Therefore, PW-6 is also a hearsay witness and his testimony is not admissible.
70. Thus, in the teeth of the above analysis, it safely stand deduced as under:
1. Firstly, the petitioner despite examining multiple witness could not
furnish any cogent piece of evidence on record to prima facie substantiate,
that the deceased Satyavir on the fateful day i.e. 27.11.2016 was heading for
his overtime duty with respondent no. 1 i.e. Haldiram Snack Pvt. Ltd.
2. Secondly PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 were not present at the spot of the
incident and were informed about the same by PW-2 and therefore the
information of these three witnesses was limited to the one supplied to themDigitally
by PW-2 and thus all the three witnesses are hearsay witnesses, thereby
signed byRICHA
RICHA
SHARMA making their testimony inadmissible as per the settled proposition of law.
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
16:15:54
+0530ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 35/37
3. Thirdly, PW-2 was the witness accompanying the deceased on the fateful
day but even he had miserably failed to furnish any vital piece of evidence
on record apart from self serving statements to even prima facie establish in
the first place, that he and deceased Satyavir were heading toward their duty
as a part of their overtime duty despite it being a weekly off for deceased
Satyavir.
71. The respondent no. 1 got examined Sh. Jai Shankar Tiwari as its witness
and he exhibited the inspection report dated 15.04.2019 related to the duty record of the
deceased employee i.e Ex.RW1/1 in his examination-in-chief. Perusal of the document
exhibited RW1/1 clearly reveals, that a notice was duly sent to the employer i.e.
respondent no. 1 Haldiram on 10.04.2019 to produce the entire record regarding the
deceased employee Satyavir as the information regarding the death of the deceased
employee of RW-1 was received by RW-2 only pursuant to the receipt of Court
summons. Further as per the attendance register forming a part of the document
collectively exhibited as RW1/1, it clearly stand reflected that the fateful day i.e.
27.11.20165 was a weekly off and in-rebuttal of the said documented piece of evidence
in form of attendance sheet no evidence has been furnished on record by the petitioner. It
is further, vital to note, that as per the attendance sheet the entries for the date of
27.11.2016 in front of name of Harvir S/o Puran Singh is marked as absent thereby
prima facie leading to a deduction that though it could have been a working day for
Harvir, who did not turn up for his duty on the fateful day and accordingly an absent was
marked but for the deceased Satyavir it was most certainly a weekly off as per document
exhibited RW1/1, as there is neither any absent or present marked against his name for
the requisite day, meaning thereby that the same was not required to be mark due to his
weekly off. Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
16:16:04 +0530
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 36/37
72. Thus, RW-1 withstood the litmus test of cross examination, thereby
establishing that respondent no. 2 i.e. ESIC was not responsible for the death benefit in
commuting fatal death case, as 27.11.2016 was a weekly off for Satyavir, thereby
establishing no nexus of time and place of the alleged accident with the factum of course
of employment or arising out of employment. Even otherwise respondent no. 1 i.e.
Haldiram being the employer of Satyavir resolutely denied that not only on the day of
the fatal accident i.e. 27.11.2016, it was a weekly off for the deceased but also that he
was not called to work for any overtime work, meaning thereby that the alleged incident
has got nothing to do with the course of employment even remotely and as such the
theory of Notional extension of the premises by virtue of Section 52A and 51 E of ESI
Act 1948 is inapplicable to deem or treat the public road accident as employment injury
under Section 2 (8) of the said Act.
73. Relief
In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are
not able to prove there case on merits. Hence, the present petition does not deserve to be
allowed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
74. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in open Court
on 02.08.2025
(Richa Sharma)
Digitally signed
by RICHA Sr. Civil Judge - Cum - RC
RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA
Date: THC / Delhi / 02.08.2025
2025.08.02
16:16:12 +0530
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 37/37
1 ESIC 2/19 HARPYARI Vs. HALDIRAM PRODUCTS PVT LTD
02.08.2025
Present : Sh. S.P. Verma Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
None for respondent no.1
Sh. Ajit Kumar SSO for respondent no.2
Vide separate judgment of even date, the petition of the petitioner is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to record room.
(Richa Sharma)
Sr. Civil Judge – Cum – RC
THC / Delhi / 02.08.2025 (p)
ESIC No. 02/2019 Harpyari Vs Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd. page no. 38/37