Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Choudhary Construction Co vs Smt. Hurmi And Anr. (2026:Rj-Jd:8400) on 13 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8400]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 886/2006
Choudhary Construction Company, 132, Maharana Pratap Nagar,
Pali. Through its proprietor Mangilal Choudhary S/o Sh. Laduram
Ji, R/o Maharana Pratap Nagar, Pali.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Hurmi W/o Late Sh. Sujaram Bheel, R/o Village Natrad,
Tehsil Chohtan, District Barmer.
2. The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub-
Divisional Desuri, Headquarter Sadari, District Pali (Proforma
Respondent).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nitin Ojha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Trivedi
Ms. Aishwarya Anand
Mr. Tushar Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order 13/02/2026
1. The present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1923"
for the sake brevity) has been filed challenging the award dated 04.01.2006 passed by the learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Act, 1923, Pali, in W.C./Fatel Case No.17/99 "Mrs. Hurmi v. Choudhary Construction & Co." whereby the claim filed by respondent No.1 was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.2,21,370/- plus penalty of Rs.55,343/- along with interest was awarded in favour of the claimant and against the present appellant and respondent No.2.
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:33:47 PM) (Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 09:33:49 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8400] (2 of 12) [CMA-886/2006]
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 - Smt. Hurmi filed a claim under Section 22 of the Act of 1923 against the appellant, respondent No.2 (i.e. PWD Department), and one Nakouda Construction Company. It was alleged in the claim petition that her son, Mr. Narayan Lal, aged 22 years, was employed by the appellant and respondent No.2 and, on the fateful day of 24.12.1998, suffered injuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, to which he ultimately succumbed. The claimant further stated that the site of the injury was at the premises of Nakouda Construction Company which had been leased to the appellant, and the actual work undertaken by the appellant over there was for the PWD Department who was the principal employee. It was further averred that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month from his employment under the appellant.
3. Post filing of the claim petition and appellant being thereby proceeded ex-parte, an application was moved for seeking deletion of the name of Nakouda Construction Company on the ground that it had no role in the matter and that no employer- employee relationship existed between the said company and the deceased. The said application was allowed vide order dated 28.08.2001, and accordingly, the name of Nakouda Construction Company was deleted from the array of parties.
4. Post filing of the claim petition, a reply came to be filed by respondent No.2-PWD Department, denying the existence of any employer-employee relationship between them and the deceased. They further stated that if at all the deceased was employed under the appellant or Nakouda Construction Company, then they had no (Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:33:47 PM) (Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 09:33:49 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8400] (3 of 12) [CMA-886/2006] details qua the same nor they were ever informed with regard to any accident which occurred during the course of such employment.
5. Post setting aside of ex-parte proceedings against the appellant, a separate reply, denying the existence of an employer- employee relationship between the appellant and the deceased was filed. The appellant stated that no work was pending on the date of accident and the entire work was completed on 21.12.1998. The appellant further denied that the deceased was taken to Bangar Hospital after the accident, from which the deceased later succumbed to injuries. Based on this, the appellant requested the dismissal of the claim.
6. Learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner framed six issues for his adjudication wherein the issue No.1 was with regard to the deceased being employed under the appellant as a workmen on 24.12.1998. Issue No.2 was whether the deceased expired on 24.12.1998 due to accident during the course of employment under the appellant? In order to prove her case, the respondent-claimant examined herself along with co-workers Malaram and Motiram as witnesses, and also got exhibited certain documents. For the appellant's defence, Sh. Mangilal Choudhary, the proprietor of the firm, got himself examined. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No.2-PWD Department, Sh. Megharam, Sh. Murlidas Vaishnav and Sh. Narayanlal Suthar were examined as witnesses and they also exhibited certain documents.
7. The learned Commissioner, thereafter, proceeded to adjudicate the matter while deciding all the issues in favour of the claimant, holding both the appellant and the respondent No.2-
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:33:47 PM) (Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 09:33:49 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8400] (4 of 12) [CMA-886/2006] PWD Department jointly and severally liable for payment of the amount, as specified supra, while holding that the respondent - PWD Department was the principal employer while the appellant was immediate employer of the deceased and that the death occurred due to accident during the course of employment. Being aggrieved against the same, though no appeal has been filed by the respondent No.2-PWD Department, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as far as the issue of wages and the compensation paid is concerned, there is no dispute that, the Commissioner, while deciding the amount of compensation, has decided the claim while treating the salary at the minimum i.e. Rs.2,000/- as specified in the Schedule appended with the Act of 1923. He thus asserted that the issue with regard to the salary and the amount of compensation is not been pressed, however, he challenges the impugned award to the extent of issue Nos.1 and 2, which were decided against the appellant, inasmuch as, the appellant has asserted that there was no employer-employee relationship between the appellant and the deceased.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Commissioner has decided the issue Nos.1 and 2 simply based upon the FIR, site plan and post-mortem report prepared wherein the presence of Mohanlal (brother of the appellant) has been shown. The FIR emphasizes the fact that the incident occurred at the appellant's site, while specifically stating that the deceased was employed by the appellant. However, the counsel contends that although these documents were exhibited, Mohan (Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:33:47 PM) (Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 09:33:49 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8400] (5 of 12) [CMA-886/2006] Lal, who submitted the FIR, was not examined as a witness, nor was any application filed to summon him. Therefore, the counsel asserts that the FIR and site plan cannot be relied upon, as they do not meet the definition of public documents under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He further asserts that no other document has been placed on record by the claimant to show the existence of employer-employee relationship and in absence of the same, the finding given by the learned Commissioner cannot be sustained whatsoever. He thus submits that on this pure point of law, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant asserts that as far as the findings given by the Commissioner are concerned, the same are well reasoned and based upon consideration of the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary. He further submits that the proprietor of the claimant, Sh. Mangi Lal, had appeared as a witness and he himself used to prepare the muster rolls and has the entire record of the employees working under him. However, the same was not produced and adverse inference was thus, required to be drawn against him. He further asserts that the Commissioner has rightly relied upon the document annexed i.e. FIR as the same falls within the definition of public document under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He further asserts that the appellant had got examined, witnesses Malaram and Motiram, who were working along with the deceased, to fortify the factum of the deceased being employed under the appellant and further to fortify the fact that the incident took place during the course of employment of the deceased at (Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:33:47 PM) (Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 09:33:49 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8400] (6 of 12) [CMA-886/2006] the factory premises of the appellant. He thus submits that learned Commissioner has rightly considered the entire record and passed the award impugned, which calls for no interference. He further submits that the appellant has not been able to point out any substantial question of law involved in the present case and in absence of the same, appeal cannot be entertained under Section 30 of the Act of 1923.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-PWD Department has though supported the appellant, however, has admitted that no appeal has been filed by respondent No.2-PWD Department and he also was not in a position to dispute the fact that learned Commissioner has considered the entire evidence prior to passing the order in question. He, however, tried to assert that there was no privity of contract between the Department and the appellant as on the date of the incident.
12. Needless to emphasize that respondent No.2-PWD Department has not challenged the award and has accepted the award. Thus, the claim inter se between respondent No.2-PWD Department and the appellant cannot be adjudicated while deciding the present appeal.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
14. A bare perusal of the claim will reveal that the claimant has specifically emphasized that the deceased was working as an employee/labourer under the appellant and that he expired during the course of employment at the premises of the appellant. The above-mentioned assertion was further proved by the claimant when she appeared in the witness-box and the claim was (Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:33:47 PM) (Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 09:33:49 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8400] (7 of 12) [CMA-886/2006] supported by two more witnesses, who were present at the site along with the deceased and were working under the appellant at the relevant date i.e. Malaram and Motiram. Both the above- mentioned witnesses have remained firm on their stand during the course of their cross-examination also and have rather stated that post accident, Mohanlal (brother of the proprietor of appellant- firm), took the deceased to the police station and had lodged the FIR, post which the site plan was prepared and the post mortem report was prepared. The above-mentioned documents are part of the record.
15. A perusal of the FIR will reveal that Mohanlal himself took the deceased to the hospital and during the course of treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injury. Mohan Lal has stated in the FIR, that the deceased was working as an employee under the appellant-firm and during the course of his employment, the accident happened. Needless to emphasize that, Mohan Lal is real brother of Mangilal i.e. the proprietor of the appellant-firm. Based upon the FIR in question, the site plan and the post mortem report were prepared, again fortifying the factum of accident occurring during the course of employment at the site of the appellant-firm.
16. The proprietor of the appellant-firm, Mangilal, on the contrary, had refused his knowledge about the incident while asserting that at the relevant time, he was not present at the site and was at Sumerpur. He has further denied the knowledge of lodging of any complaint/FIR by Mohanlal but has admitted that Mohan Lal is his real brother and he lived at Pali along with the appellant. He has further admitted that he used to keep the record (Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:33:47 PM) (Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 09:33:49 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8400] (8 of 12) [CMA-886/2006] of all the employees working under him, however, he has not produced the same.
17. The above-mentioned fact of non-production of the record itself was sufficient to draw adverse inference against the appellant. However, in the present case, the learned Commissioner had not delved into the above-mentioned aspect and has decided the case based upon the evidence available and the document i.e. the FIR, the site inspection report, etc.
18. The argument tried to be raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to non-production of Mohanlal, the person who had lodged the FIR being fatal, as also with regard to the learned Commissioner erring in law while relying upon the document i.e. FIR, the same being not a public document as per Section 74 of the Evidence Act, 1872 are concerned, the same are noted to be discarded. As regards the proof of documents is concerned, Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872 would be relevant which provides as under:
"35. Relevancy of entry in public 1[record of an electronic record] made in performance of duty.- An entry in any public or other official book, register or 1[record or an electronic record], stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register or 1[record or an electronic record] is kept, is itself a relevant fact."
19. A bare reading of the same will reveal that any entry made in the Register, Official Book etc. stating a relevant fact and made by public servant in discharge of his official duty, is itself a relevant fact.
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:33:47 PM) (Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 09:33:49 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8400] (9 of 12) [CMA-886/2006]
20. Needless to emphasize that FIR, which was lodged, is one of such document, the details in which were drawn by the Officer concerned in discharge of his official duty. Had it been a case where a document is not a public document, then definitely the contents of the documents were required to be proved by the person based upon whose information the entry in question was made. However, as far as the FIR is concerned, the same is a public document as defined under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, 1872 which provides as under:
"74. Public documents. - The following documents are public documents:-
(1)Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts -
(i)of the sovereign authority;
(ii)of official bodies and tribunals; and
(iii)of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, 1[of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country;
(2)public records kept 2[in any State] of private documents."
21. Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 further specifies that the certified copy of public document can be produced as a proof of contents of the public document. The only issue for consideration is thus whether the FIR in question can be said to be a public document or not. The issue in this regard was set to rest by a judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in"
"Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Nand Kishore & Ors." 2001 SCC OnLine Raj 94, wherein this Court while dealing with the case of Motor Accident Claims which pertained to almost identical facts, wherein too the factum of accident being part of the FIR was emphasized and the Tribunal had awarded the claim in favour of the claimant and the (Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:33:47 PM) (Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 09:33:49 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8400] (10 of 12) [CMA-886/2006] corporation had filed an appeal again laying a challenge to the claim based upon the fact that the FIR cannot be the basis for adjudication as the same is not a public document. This Court held the FIR to be a public document and that it could be relied upon with the aid of Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The Court held as under as under:-
"5. I have scrutinised and evaluated the evidence on record. The claimants placed on record the First Information Report Exs. 5 and 6. Undisputedly the crime report Ex. 5 of the said accident was lodged promptly with the concerned police station with brief narration as to how accident had taken place. Ex. 9 is prepared by the Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station, Sadari, who investigated the crime case registered in respect of the accident. Though, Exs. 5, 6 and 9 were tendered in evidence by the claimants without there being any objection raised against the marking/exhibiting documents from the other side, F.I.R., Site- map and Site Inspection Memo were prepared by the police officer while investigating into the offence disclosed in F.I.R. The Police Officer is a public servant and the Site Inspection Map and Site Inspection Memo are record made in discharge of his Official duties, and entries in such record are relevant fact under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such those documents are public documents as these are prepared by public servant while discharing his official duties and as such admissible in evidence.
8. Thus, it is well settled that strict provisions of Evidence Act are not to be insisted by the Tribunal on limited jurisdiction. The Tribunals while dealing the cases for compensation arising out of Motor Vehicle accident are to follow such summary procedure as it thought fit and the certified copy of the F.I.R., Inspection Map and Site Inspection Memo Panch Nama, Injury Report or the Post Mortem Report, as the case may be, and, other relevant documents prepared by the police or the doctor while discharging official duty are admissible in evidence without there being a formal proof."
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court also had an occasion to consider the issue as to whether the FIR would be a public document or not. In (Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:33:47 PM) (Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 09:33:49 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8400] (11 of 12) [CMA-886/2006] the case of "Harendra Rai vs. State of Bihar" (2023) 13 SCC 563, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the provisions of Cr.P.C. and the Evidence Act, has held the FIR to be a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, 1872 while considering the judgments passed by various High Courts on the issue in hand and endorsing their view.
23. Thus, the argument raised by the counsel for the appellant has already been answered in negative by this Hon'ble Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court also. Further the provisions of Sections 35, 56, 57 & 74 of the Evidence Act, 1872 leave no iota of doubt that the FIR being a public document, the contents of the same can be considered, while adjudicating a claim under the Act of 1923, more particularly, the same being summary proceedings and strict rules of evidence not applying to the same.
24. The learned Commissioner has considered the entire evidence and thereafter proceeded to pass the award impugned while treating the deceased to be under the employment of the appellant-firm and the accident being caused during the course of employment. The claimant has been able to prove her stand with the aid of the witnesses working along with the deceased i.e. Motiram and Malaram and further with the aid of the documents i.e. FIR, Post mortem Report, etc. to fortify the factum of the incident taking place on the fateful day at the site in question where the deceased was working under the employment of the appellant. The appellant, on the other hand, has not been able to place any document or evidence on record to substantiate his defence.
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:33:47 PM) (Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 09:33:49 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8400] (12 of 12) [CMA-886/2006]
25. In view of the above-mentioned facts, no substantial question of law is involved in the present case and the present appeal is bereft of merit. The learned Commissioner concerned has rightly considered the entire evidence while allowing the claim of the claimant.
26. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed while affirming the award dated 04.01.2006 passed by the learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Pali, in W.C./Fatal Case No.17/99 "Mrs. Hurmi v. Choudhary Construction & Co."
27. The record of the case be sent back forthwith.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J 7-charul/-
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:33:47 PM) (Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 09:33:49 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)