[ad_1]
Santosh along with two friends had taken rental accommodation from Mansingh to study for Civil Services exam. When the airconditioner in the room required repairs, they availed of the services of Madras Trading Co. owned by Sukhpreet Singh. Two mechanics were deputed to attend to the AC. While filling gas, a blast suddenly occurred due to which Santosh as well as one of the mechanics suffered serious burn injuries resulting in death. The second mechanic also suffered injuries, but survived. The police recorded his statement and registered an FIR.
Santosh’s father, Lakhsmaiah, filed a complaint before the National Commission against the landlord as well as the service agency for alleged negligence. The landlord denied liability, claiming that providing the airconditioner was not a part of the tenancy agreement, and that it was installed by the students without his knowledge. So the proceedings against the landlord were dropped.
Sukhpreet contested the case, contending that the mechanics were not his employees. Lakhsmaiah countered this by producing evidence to show that the service agency had been held liable under the Workmens Compensation Act to compensate the heirs of the deceased mechanic despite the surviving mechanic having turned a hostile witness. Lakshmaiah also relied on an affidavit filed by Santosh’s roommate which mentioned that the mechanics seemed untrained.
The Commission observed that the mechanics were employed by Sukhpreet and the blast occurred while they were attending to the AC, the Commission concluded that Sukhpreet would be vicariously liable for the death of Lakshmaiahs son.
Accordingly, by its order of October 25, 2024, delivered by Justice A.P. Sahi for the Bench along with Inder Jit Singh, the National Commission awarded Rs 10 lakh as compensation to be paid by Sukhpreet.
[ad_2]
Source link
