THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
C.M.A No. 469 OF 2011 AND C.M.A.No. 610 OF 2012 COMMON JUDGMENT :
C.M.A.No. 469 of 2011 was filed by the applicant - labourer against the order dated 02.02.2011 in W.C.No. 11 of 2004 NF on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad seeking enhancement of the compensation. Whereas C.M.A.No. 610 of 2012 was filed by the Insurance Company questioning the order under Appeal mainly on the ground that the policy did not cover the labourers, hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
As both the Appeals arise from the same order, they are being disposed of with this common order.
The case in brief is that, the applicant was employed by Sri Shaik Mahaboob - owner of the lorry bearing Registration No. AAJ 8025; on 06.04.2003, during the course of employment, he met with an accident and sustained multiple fractures and injuries; therefore, a claim was made for Rs.3 lacs towards compensation; the applicant was aged about 35 years at the time of accident and he claimed to have earning Rs.3,000/- per month as salary. The learned Authority granted compensation of Rs.1,42,614/-, to be deposited in 30 days.
Learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company Sri Kota Subba Rao submits that the Authority had failed to appreciate that the Insurer is not liable to pay compensation 2 under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the labourer is not covered under the Act as per the policy. He contends that the policy covers only risk of one driver and cleaner and with respect to others, unless extra premium is paid, under Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company.
Learned counsel for the applicant resisted the same and submits that the Appeal would lie only when a substantial question of law arises and there being no substantial question of law, in the light of the finding recorded by the Authority, he seeks dismissal of the Insurance Company Appeal. However, the learned counsel restricts his claim in C.M.A.No. 469 of 2011 only for interest component in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company v. Siby George1.
Having considered the respective submissions, the issue whether the insurance company is liable to pay for the labourers is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Prembai Patel2. The other question urged by the learned Standing Counsel does not require much consideration as the Authority had recorded finding on coverage, disability and also on loss of earning capacity. So far as the interest component is concerned, the learned Standing Counsel fairly concedes that it is to be paid @ 12% per anum from one month from the date of accident till the date of deposit. 1 (2012) 12 SCC 540 2 (2005) 6 SCC 172 3 In the light of the above, C.M.A.No. 610 of 2012 is dismissed and C.M.A.No. 469 of 2011 is allowed in part in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Siby George's case, granting interest on the compensation amount @ 12% per anum from one month from the date of accident till the date of deposit. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 15th July 2021 ksld 4