Shamrao Case Study

02. In short, it is a case of the petitioners that the deceased Shamrao s/o Rangnath Randive was husband of petitioner no. 01 and father of petitioner nos. 02 & 03. The deceased Shamrao was working as labour with the respondents for digging the well in the agriculture land of respondent no.01. Respondent no.01 had given contract of said work to respondent no.02. On 10/02/2012, at about 4.00 to 4.15 p.m., the deceased Shamrao and other labours were working inside the well and respondent no. 02 was operating the crane. At the relevant time, respondent no. 01 has insisted respondent no. 02 to complete the construction work of well immediately. Hence, respondent no. 01 has negligently installed the crane and started work. The said crane
Respondent no. 01 resisted the petition by filing written say (Exh.No.10). He denied all adverse contentions. It is specifically denied that respondent no. 01 was working as his employee. In additional written say, it is pleaded that respondent no. 01 has given contract of digging well in his field to respondent no. 02 on 03/05/2011 for Rs.2,55,000/-. Respondent no. 02 has accepted Rs.2,55,000/- and agreed responsibility of the accident, if any, occured while digging the well. Respondent no. 02 employed deceased Shamrao and other employees as labour for digging the well. Hence, respondent no. 01 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. There are relations between the deceased Shamrao and respondent no. 02 as servant and master. Hence, the petitioners have right to claim compensation from respondent no. 02. However, the petitioners have unnecessarily involved respondent no. 01 in the present matter. Due to which, respondent no. 01 is facing heart problems. He expanded Rs.3,00,000/- for treatment and spending his remaining life in a very critical condition. Ultimately, respondent no. 01 prayed to reject the petition with costs and compensatory costs of
Respondent no. 02 resisted the petition by filing written say (Exh.No.22). He also denied all adverse contentions. Respondent no. 02 has denied that he is contractor by profession and owner of the crane. He denied that the deceased Shamrao was employee of respondent no. 02. He contended that respondent no. 01 is owner of the agriculture land where construction of well was being raised. Respondent no.01 had given contract of construction of well to one Haridas Sukhdeo Shinde, who is owner of the crane. Respondent no. 02 himself was working as labour with Haridas Sukhdeo Shinde for digging the well. Respondent no. 02 and other labours worked for 82 days, but respondent no. 01 has not paid remaining amount of labour charges. Hence, respondent no. 02 and other labours filed application to the President, Dispute Free Village Committee, Tahsildar, Deputy Collector and Superintendent of Police, but the did not recive payment of labour charges. In the above incident Haridas Sukhdeo Shinde, owner of the crane also died and respondent no. 02 has sustained injury. Hence, respondent no. 02 prayed to reject this petition with