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 anelectronic 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)
