JUDGMENT
R.S. Chauhan, J.
1. The appellant non-applicant has challenged the award dated 6.10.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation Tonk, whereby the learned Commissioner has awarded Rs. 2,07,980 to the respondent-applicant for the death of Mr. Mohd. Umer.
2. Briefly, the facts are that Mohd. Umer was working as a Naka Guard in the Nagar Parishad, Tonk. During the independence celebration he was assigned the work of helping the electrician with the RSEB for repairing the road lights in Tonk. On 14.8.1996 while he was helping Nasir Ahmed, he fell from the electric pole and sustained head injuries. Subsequently, he expired in the hospital. The respondent-applicants, who comprised the widow and the children of Mr. Mohd. Umer, filed a claim petition under the Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) for a just compensation from the Nagar Parishad. The Nagar Parishad contested the case. While it admitted the fact that Mohd. Umer was their employee, it argued that it was not his duty to climb the electric pole and to repair it. In case he had climbed the electric pole and had fallen, the fall was due to his own volition and negligence. Therefore, they claimed that they were not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. In order to prove their case, the applicants examined themselves as witnesses along with Aziz Beg. They also produced a number of documents. On the other hand, the appellant did not produce any witness on their behalf. After going through the oral and documentary evidence vide award dated 6.10.2004, the Commissioner was pleased to grant a compensation as mentioned above.
3. Mr. B.B. Ojha, the learned Counsel for Nagar Parishad, has vehemently argued that the deceased was appointed as Naka Guard. It was not part of his duty to climb of the electric pole and to try to repair the electrical faults. In case he had climbed the electric pole and had fallen, it was due to his own negligence for which the Nagar Parishad could not be held liable. He, therefore, assailed the finding of the learned Commissioner. In order to support his contention he has relied upon the case of Mana Ram v. The Secretary 1999 DNJ (Raj.) 598.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel and have perused the impugned order.
5. According to the office orders which were produced as Exs. 1 to 4 it is obvious that Mohd. Umer was directed to help the employees of RSEB in repairing the road lights on the occasion of the Independence Day. Moreover according to the FIR lodged by the Nagar Palika on 14.8.1996 the Nagar Palika informed the police that, while Mohd. Umer had gone with Lineman Nisar and was helping him to repair the road lights, he fell from the pole and subsequently died at 2.45 p.m. These documents clearly prove the facts that Mohd. Umer was employed with the Nagar Parishad, was directed to help the Lineman Nisar on the fateful day and, while helping him to repair the road lights, he fell from the pole and subsequently expired. Therefore, Mohd. Umer expired “during the course of his employment” while he was carrying out the duties assigned to him. Since the deceased had expired while carrying out the duties assigned to him, the case of Mana Ram (supra) is not applicable to the present case. For in the case of Mana Ram he had wilfully disobeyed the instructions which were given to him for not cleaning the machine which was running. But in the present case, there is no indication that Mohd. Umer had flouted the instructions given to him. Since the learned Commissioner has granted the compensation after validly going through the evidence, we do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the appeal has no merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.
