[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal ... vs Smt. Sunanda Dadasaheb Kale And Ors. on 16 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:8023
FA-206-2023 (J) C2.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by HARISH
VITHAL
HARISH
VITHAL
CHAUDHARI
Date:
CHAUDHARI 2026.02.16
FIRST APPEAL NO.206 OF 2023
18:49:20
+0530
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2130 OF 2013
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.206 OF 2023
The Commissioner,
Nashik Municipal Corporation, Nashik ...Appellant
(Orig. Defendant)
Versus
1. Smt. Sunanda Dadasaheb Kale,
Age: 42yrs. Occ. Household,
2. Sunny Dadasaheb Kale,
Age: 20yrs, Occu: Service,
3. Pankaj Dadasaheb Kale,
Age: 18yrs, Occu: Education,
All R/o. Vir Dadasaheb Rajgruah,
Anand Nagar, Behir d Nasardi Bridge,
Nashik Road, Nashik. ...Respondents
(No.1 to 3 Orig. Applicants)
***
Mr. M. L. Patil for the Appellant.
Ms. Seema Sarnaik, Sr. Adv. a/w Ms. Sangeeta Salvi & Ms. Pooja Chettiar
for the Respondents.
***
CORAM : M. M. SATHAYE, J.
RESERVED ON : 12th NOVEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 16th FEBRUARY, 2026.
Harish 1
::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/02/2026 20:32:04 :::
FA-206-2023 (J) C2.DOC
JUDGMENT :
1. This First Appeal is filed challenging the impugned Judgment
and Order dated 27.04.2012 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation and The Judge, Labour Court, Nashik at Nashik in
WC(F)No.35/2007(WC.(SL)No.103/2007). By the said impugned
Judgment and Order, the application for compensation filed by the
Respondents is allowed and the Appellant/Defendant Municipal
Corporation is directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,06,180/- with interest
at the rate of 12% p.a. from 01.03.2006 till its realization.
2. The Appellant is Defendant. The Respondents are the Applicants.
3. Few facts necessary for disposal of this appeal, are as under :
3.1 The Respondents are widow and sons of deceased Dadasaheb
Laxman Kale, who was working as a fireman in the employment of the
Appellant-Municipal Corporation. On 01.02.2006 when deceased
Dadasaheb was on his duty to extinguish fire on a building, he was
standing on tin roof, which fell down, seriously injuring Dadasaheb,
resulting in his death. The Respondents demanded compensation for death
of Dadasaheb from Appellant-Municipal Corporation under notice dated
24.10.2007. Since, the demand was not complied, the Respondents filed
claim under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, ('WC Act' for short).
3.2. The case of the Respondents is that at the time of death,
Dadasaheb was 50 years old and was earning monthly salary of Rs.
10,559/- as per his last pay slip. The Respondents claimed Rs. 3,07,800/-
as compensation. The Appellant-Municipal Corporation resisted the claim
by filing written statement. It is not disputed that the deceased Dadasaheb
was serving as firemen and died in the accident during the course of
employment. The age and monthly salary of deceased Dadasaheb was
FA-206-2023 (J) C2.DOC
denied as well as the liability to pay compensation was also denied. The
Appellant-Municipal Corporation contended that already an amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- was given to the Respondents as 'additional compensation' and
an amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- is received by the Respondents from group
insurance claim and the Respondent No. 2 (Sunny) has been taken in the
employment on compassionate ground. Thus, it was contended that no
further liability of payment can be extended and prayer was made to
dismiss the claim being false.
3.3. The Trial Court framed issues. All the Respondents viz.,
Sunanda, Sunny and Pankaj examined themselves. They also produced
documentary evidence. The Appellant-Municipal Corporation did not
examine any witness.
3.4. The learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, by
impugned judgment and order allowed the application, as already
indicated above.
4. Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Municipal
Corporation submitted that the learned Commissioner erred in holding that
the Respondents are entitled to receive any compensation under WC Act.
He contended that the Respondents have already received an amount
under the head of 'additional compensation' and from the group insurance
policy purchased by the Municipal Corporation and one of the legal heir
has been given compassionate appointment. He submitted that the
compensation of Rs. 2,75,000/- received by the Respondents was
compensation paid from group insurance policy purchased by the
Appellant-Municipal Corporation, for which premium was paid by the
Municipal Corporation. He relied on Order No. 1186 dated 05.03.2005
issued by the Commissioner of the Appellant-Municipal Corporation. He
submitted that from the said order, it can be seen that under policy
FA-206-2023 (J) C2.DOC
decision and a resolution of standing committee, a policy was purchased
from The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for the period from 12.03.2005
to 11.03.2006, covering the date of the accident (01.02.2006) and it was
resolved that the premium be paid by the Corporation. He submitted that
therefore, since the Respondents have received amount from said group
insurance policy, the Appellant is not liable to pay any more amount. He
also relied upon the receipt of the insurance company showing payment of
premium and a list of employees from Fire Brigade Department including
the name of deceased Dadasaheb at serial No. 54. He relied upon following
judgments in support of his case:
(i) Associated Electrical Agencies, Worli, Bombay vs. Commissioner
for Workmen's Compensation And Judge, 3rd Labour Court, Bombay
and Anr. [1995 (1) Mh.L.J. 379].
(ii) Dhropadabai and Ors. vs. Technocraft Toolings [(2015) 14 SCC
454).
5. Per contra, Ms. Sarnaik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the Respondents supported the impugned Judgment and Order. She
submitted that it has come on record under pay slip (Exh-U/16) that
certain amount was deducted from the monthly salary of deceased
Dadasaheb towards insurance premium and therefore, even if the
insurance premium is paid by Municipal Corporation, once it is deducted
from the salary of deceased, it becomes policy purchased by the deceased
himself. Therefore if an amount is paid under such policy, the same cannot
be equated to statutory liability under WC Act. She submitted that
therefore, notwithstanding the payment of Rs. 2,75,000/-, the Appellant-
Municipal Corporation is obliged under law to pay statutory compensation.
She further submitted that the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as additional
compensation is a voluntary act and it will not absolve Municipal
FA-206-2023 (J) C2.DOC
Corporation from statutory liability. She relied upon the judgment of
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Trichy vs. Kathamuthu Bright Industries,
Trichy reported in [II L.L.J. P.-143] in support of her claim.
Reasons and Conclusions.
6. It is important to note that this is an appeal under section 30 of
the WC Act which requires substantial question of law involved, as
provided under provisio to Section 30(1) of the WC Act. No question of
law is framed when notices for final hearing was issued. Therefore let us
consider if any substantial question of law is involved or not.
7. At the outset, it must be noted that this is a case where
Respondents have filed an application under statutory provisions of WC
Act. It is not in dispute that the deceased Dadasaheb died due to the
accident arising during the course of employment. This aspect is not
seriously challenged by the Appellant. Once, an employee dies due to
accident arising during the course of employment, the statutory liability
under Section 3 of the WC Act comes into play and the law mandates the
employer to pay compensation. Section 3 of the WC Act provides for the
employer's liability. Section 4 of the WC Act governs the amount of
compensation. Section 4-A of the WC Act provides that compensation must
be paid when due and penalty is provided in case of default.
8. The main argument of the Appellant-Corporation is that it has
paid the premium for group insurance policy covering the present accident
and in the list of employees for whom the policy was purchased, the name
of deceased Dadasaheb specifically appears. It is therefore argued that,
since the Appellant-Municipal Corporation has paid the premium and the
compensation of Rs. 2,75,000/- is received from insurance company, that
amount has to be adjusted towards statutory compensation payable. It is
FA-206-2023 (J) C2.DOC
also argued that since, an additional compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- is
already paid, the total amount paid is already more than the amount
directed under the impugned order. It is submitted that the total amount
paid is Rs.3,75,000/- and the amount under impugned order is Rs.
3,06,180/-.
9. I have perused the impugned judgment and order. The Trial
Court has considered that amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid to the
Respondents as special financial help. The copy of the order No. 2040
dated 22.02.2006 is considered by the Trial Court.
10. When the Trial Court passed the judgment, it was not the case of
the Appellant-Municipal Corporation that premium of the group insurance
policy has been paid by the Corporation (employer). In this appeal, relying
upon the aforesaid order of Municipal Corporation dated 05.03.2005, the
case is made out that premium amount was paid by Municipal Corporation
towards premium of the group insurance policy.
11. Assuming that the Appellant Municipal Corporation paid
premium, the same will not make any difference in the facts and
circumstances of this case, because it has come on record that the income
tax returns produced on record shows Rs. 10,992/- deducted towards the
policy premium from the salary of deceased Dadasaheb. Not only that, but
the last drawn pay slip of the deceased Dadasaheb at Exh. U-16 indicates
that Rs. 1,043/- was deducted every month towards policy premium. It is
material to note that this deduction is not towards life insurance policy but
word used is only 'vima' which means, insurance policy. If the Appellant
Municipal Corporation was deducting monthly amounts towards Insurance
policy from the salary of deceased Dadasaheb, it cannot be said that the
Municipal corporation has paid the premium. However, this is a clear
indication that the deceased Dadasaheb was paying premium towards
FA-206-2023 (J) C2.DOC
insurance from his own pocket and the policy benefits were purchased by
him. In that view of the matter, the payment received by the Respondents
of Rs. 2,75,000/- under group insurance policy cannot be traced back to
any statutory provision. For the same reason, it cannot be said that, the
Appellant-Municipal Corporation can be absolved of its statutory liability to
pay compensation and no such adjustment can be claimed in the amount of
statutory liability.
12. The Trial Court in paragraph Nos. 9, 10 and 12 of the impugned
judgment has correctly considered this position. There is no explanation
about this deduction of Rs.1,043 given by the Appellant-Municipal
Corporation, either before the learned Commissioner or before this Court
as to, for what purpose, the said deduction was applied, if not for the
group insurance.
13. The Trial Court has considered the provisions of Section 3(1)
and 4(1) of the WC Act to calculate the amount based on age of deceased
Dadasaheb at the time of death and the amount of salary and applying
relevant factor of age. Considering the figures discussed by the Trial Court
in paragraph No. 15, in my view, compensation has been calculated
correctly and no interference is required.
14. So far as the aspect of adjustment of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by
Appellant-Municipal Corporation is concerned, since it has come on record
that it is special financial help, the same cannot be connected to statutory
liability. Therefore, it cannot be adjusted towards payment of statutory
liability. The Trial Court has correctly considered this aspect in paragraph
No. 13 of the impugned judgment.
15. The Trial Court has also considered that the Appellant-Municipal
Corporation failed to pay any part of the compensation amount within one
FA-206-2023 (J) C2.DOC
month from the date of accident and therefore as per Section 4A(3)(a) of
the WC Act, liability of interest @12% p.a. is fixed after one month of
accident till realization of the amount. No fault can be found with the said
finding. It is statutory requirement.
16. It is material to note that the Appellant-Municipal Corporation
has not advanced any arguments about the quantum or calculation of
compensation.
17. The Trial Court has considered the judgment of Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Srimati S. Sawant, [2002-BCR-1-382] where
the similar situation is considered and it is held that when the
compensation under the said Act is under consideration and insurance was
taken under the group insurance scheme, the claim is simply by virtue of
group insurance policy and it is not traceable to any provisions of the said
Act.
18. As far as Associated Electrical Agencies (supra) is concerned, the
said judgment is about bar under Section 53 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, (34 of 1948) ('ESI Act' for short). Therefore, ex-facie the
said judgment will not help the Appellant's case. The claim in the present
appeal is involved under Section 3 and 4 of the WC Act being a different
statute.
19. So far as the judgment of Dhropadabai (supra) is concerned, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the applicability of bar under
Section 53 of ESI Act, when an employee is an insured person under
Section 2(14) of ESI Act. I was held that neither such person nor his
dependents would be entitled to get compensation or damages from the
employer under WC Act. In the present case, there is nothing on record to
indicate that deceased Dadasaheb was an insured person under Section
FA-206-2023 (J) C2.DOC
2(14) of ESI Act. In that view of the matter, the facts of the present case
are completely distinguishable. Hence, the said judgment will not help the
Appellant-Municipal Corporation.
20. In the facts and circumstances narrated above, no substantial
question of law is involved. As such, there is no merit in the appeal and
same is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, nothing survives for
consideration in the civil application (interim stay) and the same is also
dismissed. No order as to costs.
21. If the amount of compensation deposited with the concerned
Commissioner/Labour court is not withdrawn by the Respondents, the
Respondents are liberty to withdraw the same along with accrued interest
if any. If the Respondents have withdrawn any amount partially, they are at
liberty to withdraw the remaining amount lying with concerned
Commissioner/Labour court along with accrued interest immediately.
22. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this order.
[M. M. SATHAYE, J.]
