How Did Ashok Raosaheb Bade Case Study

11. Vimal (PW No.01) in her evidence stated that the deceased Ashok Raosaheb Bade was her husband, who died due to electric shock. Her evidence shows that the deceased Ashok Raosaheb Bade was working as a labour with respondent no. 01. On 25/11/2009 the deceased Ashok was present in his house. At the relevant time, respondent no.01 contacted him through mobile call. Respondent no. 01 through his mobile phone called the deceased Ashok to repaire electrical fault in the vicinity of village Hingni. Thereafter, the deceased Ashok Raosaheb Bade on the say of respondent no. 01, left his house and went to the field of one Bandu Solunke in the vicinity of village Hingni. The deceased Ashok has climbed on the electric pole and starting to repaire the electric fault as per the instructions of respondent no. 01. However, at the time of repairing the electric fault, the deceased Ashok sustained electric shock and died on the spot. She further categorically stated that the deceased Ashok was working with respondent no. 01 as a labour and he was getting a monthly income of Rs.7,500/- at the rate of Rs.250/- per day. The deceased Ashok was working with respondent no. 01 for the benefit of respondent no.
It has come on the record that the deceased Ashok Raosaheb Bade died on 25/11/2009 due to electrical shock and at the time of the alleged incident he was 30 years old. However, there is nothing on the record to show that respondent no. 01 has employed the deceased Ashok as a labour. The petitioners failed to prove the master and servant relationship between the respondents and the deceased Ashok. So also the petition is barred by the law of limitation, as per the provisions of section 10 (2) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. In the above circumstances the petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation from the respondents, as prayed. In view of my above discussion, I answered issue no. 03 in the negative and in reply to issue no. 04, pass the following