Skip tragedy trial: Boss denies blame for worker's death
A skip hire boss claimed he didn't see anything and wasn't to blame after a colleague fell to his death, a court heard.
Bikram Mahli told police in a statement he wasn't at the controls of a digger that either knocked or forced Jagpal Singh, 24, to fall in the yard at Bilston Skip Hire on June 28, 2012.
But grainy CCTV footage shown to the jury at Wolverhampton Crown Court, showed Mahli in the cab. Singh was found sprawled on the ground and later died in hospital of chest injuries.
Giving evidence, Mahli, 44, said: "When I was working with him I knew that everything was right and there was no danger. He knew what he was doing.
"It was started in front of me. I could see it clearly.
"I went to the toilet and was gone for about three or four minutes. I came back and saw him lying on the ground. He got up, then fell again, then got up again. I asked him if he was ok. "He said yes brother, I'm fine. I then called out for the rest of the workers and we brought him through."
Prosecutor Michael Burroughs QC asked Mahli: "Do you agree that you were the person working closest to Jagpal?" He replied: "Yes."
Mr Burroughs then asked if he was sitting in the cab of the excavator. Mahli said: "I was driving the machine."
"If you were paying any attention, you must have seen him fall to the ground?" asked Mr Burroughs, but Mr Mahli said: "If I had seen him I would have stopped the machine there and then."
The prosecutor asked: "You can't help us at all as to how he fell? Are you to blame for Jagpal's death."
"No," replied Mahli, "I don't know myself. I was driving the machine, I could see clearly and he wasn't there.
"I'm not to blame, I didn't see him. 100 per cent."
Mahli made a statement to police after the death of Mr Singh, of Bilston Road, Wolverhampton, but three days later detectives called at his home in Yale Road, Willenhall, and told him police believed parts of his statement were 'untrue.' He was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter.
The company has since gone into liquidation but is being prosecuted in its absence. It denies corporate manslaughter and failing to discharge its duty of care to employees.
Mahli admits negligence in failing to ensure Mr Singh's safety but denies manslaughter through gross negligence. The case continues.
