Future General India Insurance ... vs Paramalla Laxmi, Visakhapatnam ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4295 AP

      THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                     C.M.A.No.298 of 2017
JUDGMENT:

The Appellant herein filed this Appeal under Section 30 of

Workmen's Compensation Act, against the Order and Decree

dated 08.02.2017 passed in W.C.No.13 of 2012 by the Court of

the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant

Commissioner of Labour-I, Visakhapatnam District, (in short

'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal has granted a total

compensation of Rs.7,47,750/- for the death of the deceased in

the accident that was occurred on 21.09.2012.

2. The appellant herein is the 2nd opposite party;

respondents 1 to 5 herein are the applicants and 6th respondent

herein is the 1st opposite party before the learned Tribunal.

3. The respondents 1 to 5 herein, who are applicants have

filed a claim petition before the tribunal alleging that on

21.09.2012 the deceased workman as a maestry, during the

course of his employment, he was fallen down from the third

floor of the building. As a result of which the workman

sustained grievous injuries and shifted to the hospital for

treatment, where the doctors are declared that the deceased was

died. A case in Crime No.359 of 2012 was registered by Palem 2 Dr.KMR, J CMA.No.298 of 2017

Police Station. Therefore, the applicants/ respondents 1 to 5

approached the appellant/ 2nd opposite party with a request to

pay compensation, but in vain. Hence the applicants/

respondents 1 to 5 have approached the Tribunal.

4. The opposite parties 1 and 2 before the tribunal have

filed their respective counters. The 6th respondent/ 1st opposite

party denying all material allegations in the claim petition and

mainly contended that this respondent insured with the insurer

i.e appellant, paid premium and policy is in force and the

deceased was on duty at the time of accident. Therefore the 1st

opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the

deceased.

5. The appellant/ 2nd opposite party filed counter denying

all material averments made in the claim petition and mainly

contended that the amount of compensation claimed by the

applicants/ respondents 1 to 5 are highly excessive and

exorbitant. The 6th respondent/ 1st opposite party violated the

terms and conditions of the policy. Further the appellant

repudiated the claim of the 6th respondent as per terms and

conditions, vide letter dated 28.11.2012. Therefore the this

appellant is not liable to indemnify the liability of the 6th 3 Dr.KMR, J CMA.No.298 of 2017

respondent herein and that the claim petition is liable to be

dismissed.

6. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal has

framed the following issues viz.,

1) Whether the deceased Mr. Paramalla Appala Raju met with an accident on 21.09.2012 and died during the course and out of his employment as Maestri in the employment of the 1st opposite party?

2) If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the Applicants? And;

3) What is the amount of compensation entitled by the Applicants?

7. During the course of trial, the respondents/1 to 5 were

examined as AW-1 and AW-2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A8 and

on behalf of the 6th respondent/ 1st opposite party, RW-1 was

examined and got marked documents as Ex.B1 and on behalf of

the appellant/ 2nd opposite party, he himself examined as RW-2

and marked Ex.B2 and B3 documents i.e True copy of Policy

and copy of terms and conditions of the policy.

8. The Tribunal, after hearing on both sides passed an

order holding that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and

severally held liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 7,47,750/-

to the applicants i.e respondents 1 to 5. Assailing the same, the

present C.M.A came to be filed by the appellant/ 2nd opposite

party.

                                  4                      Dr.KMR, J
                                               CMA.No.298 of 2017

9. Heard Mr. N. Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel for the

Appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents.

10. During hearing learned counsel for the appellant

would contend that the learned Tribunal ought to have saddled

the liability to pay compensation of Rs. 7,47,750/- on the

insured i.e 6th respondent, as the appellant has discharged its

burden by examining its witness RW-2 and by marking Exs.B2

and B3 thereby establishing that the 6th respondent obtained

the Insurance Policy under Workmen Compensation Act, which

covers only 8 employees in all, but at the time of accident he

employed 15 workers. Therefore the 6th respondent violated the

terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. But the learned

Tribunal holding that the appellant is bound to indemnify the

6th respondent for payment of compensation to the respondents

1 to 5 is untenable and unjust. Therefore, the appellant is not

liable to pay any compensation to the respondents 1 to 5 and

requested to allow the appeal.

11. During hearing learned counsel for the respondents

reiterated the contents urged before the learned tribunal and

vehemently opposed to allow the appeal.

                                 5                         Dr.KMR, J
                                                 CMA.No.298 of 2017



      12. Perused the record.

13. The appellant mainly contended that at the time of

accident 15 workers were working, though the policy covers only

8 employees. Therefore the 6th respondent has violated the

terms and conditions of the policy. Further the Ex.B1 policy in

favour of 6th respondent covers the risk subject to certain terms

and conditions. Whereas, the deceased is held to be a workman,

the statutory liability for the insurance company exists to

indemnify the risk of workmen/ third party. In the instant case,

as per policy, the risk covers only 8 employees, but only one

worker lost life due to fallen down from the top floor. The policy

is binding, applicable and same was in force as on date of

accident. Therefore, the appellant cannot say that the policy is

not applicable and the 6th respondent had violated the terms

and conditions of the policy and repudiated the claim on the

ground that there are 15 workers were working instead of 8

workers and that the policy was not covered is highly illegal and

arbitrary.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the

compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is highly 6 Dr.KMR, J CMA.No.298 of 2017

excessive and exorbitant. As could be seen from the order of the

learned Tribunal would show that the ratio taken by the learned

tribunal while assessing the compensation is within the

parameters of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The

learned Tribunal rightly assessed the value of compensation as

per law and needs no interference against its order on any

count and finds no impropriety or irregularity in the order.

Therefore, the C.M.A is liable to be dismissed.

15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case, perusing the record and considering the submissions of

the both the counsel, the C.M.A is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

pending shall stand closed.

________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

Date 15.09.2023.

KK
                              7                      Dr.KMR, J
                                           CMA.No.298 of 2017



      THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO




                    C.M.A.No.298 of 2017




Date: 15.09.2023.

KK