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 +0530 ESIC 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 +0530 ESIC 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 +0530 ESIC 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 +0530 ESIC 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 +0530 ESIC 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 +0530 ESIC 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 +0530 ESIC 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 & 21. 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 be ESIC 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 +0530 ESIC 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 SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02 16:13:37 +0530 ESIC 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 RICHARICHA 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 +0530 ESIC 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 RICHARICHA 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 SHARMARICHA 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 +0530 ESIC 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 SHARMA detract from such a duty if the accepted one is of proved necessity SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02 16:14:57 +0530 or 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 +0530 ESIC 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 +0530 ESIC 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 SHARMARICHA 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 +0530 ESIC 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 them Digitally by PW-2 and thus all the three witnesses are hearsay witnesses, thereby signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA making their testimony inadmissible as per the settled proposition of law.
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02 16:15:54 +0530 ESIC 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