Kerala High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Prasanna Kunjumon on 6 September, 2024
Author: T.R. Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
2024:KER:67921
MFA (ECC) NO. 4 OF 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 15TH BHADRA, 1946
MFA (ECC) NO. 4 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2015 IN ECC NO.199 OF 2014
OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION (INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL), ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/2ND OPPOSITE PARTY:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
ERNAKULAM NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER REGIONAL
MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS AND 1ST OPPOSITE PARTY:
1 PRASANNA KUNJUMON
W/O.LATE KUNJUMON, MANJAPARAMBIL HOUSE, EZHUPUNNA
SOUTH P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN- 686 550.
2 NEETHU KUNJUMON
D/O.LATE KUNJUMON, MANJAPARAMBIL HOUSE, EZHUPUNNA
SOUTH P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN - 686 550.
2024:KER:67921
MFA (ECC) NO. 4 OF 2017
2
3 SILPI REALTORS AND CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD
SHILPI CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS, G-412-A, 1ST
FLOOR, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 036.
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.JAGATH
SANDRA SUSAN KURIAKOSE
K.G.SARATHKUMAR(S-220)
THIS MFA (ECC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.09.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:67921
MFA (ECC) NO. 4 OF 2017
3
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
M.F.A (E.C.C.) No.4 of 2017
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of September, 2024
JUDGMENT
The only question involved in this appeal filed by the
insurer is whether the insurer is liable to pay interest for the
compensation awarded from the date of the accident. The case
of the appellant is that the claim was filed in 2011, while the
accident took place on 01.01.2005. It is hence contended that
the claimants approached the Commissioner after several
years and the Insurance Company should not be mulcted with
the liability for paying interest for the said period. It is seen
from the records that the claimants have specifically
contended before the Commissioner that the 1 st opposite party
who was the employer had informed the insurer about the
2024:KER:67921
MFA (ECC) NO. 4 OF 2017
accident on the date of the accident itself and relevant records
had also been transferred to the appellant. When the matter
was being delayed by the appellant, the claimants had
approached this Court by filing a writ petition for redressal of
their grievances and the employer had contended before this
Court that all the documents had been transferred to the
appellant. The appellant's case before this Court in those
proceedings was that they had not received all the papers and
they were hence not able to calculate the compensation. The
claimants approached the Commissioner when the insurer did
not deposit the compensation amount even after receipt of all
the documents from the employer. There is no specific denial
of these aspects. The contention taken by the appellant before
the Commissioner was that they are not liable to pay interest
in view of the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Lilla Francis & Others [2014 (1) KLT 731]. The order of the
2024:KER:67921
MFA (ECC) NO. 4 OF 2017
Commissioner shows that the issue regarding interest has
been considered elaborately and the Commissioner found that
the insurance schedule, which is produced as Ext.B1 by the
appellants does not show that it was the policy which was
issued to the 2nd opposite party and the policy itself remains
unsigned and unfilled. The Commissioner noted that the
proviso available in the schedule is that the insurer will not be
liable to include any interest or penalty imposed on the insured
on account of the failure of the insurer to comply with the
requirements laid down under the Workmen's Compensation
Act, 1923. The proviso does not specifically say about the
requirements under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The
Commissioner has found that the appellant did not even care
to lead any evidence before the Commissioner with regard to
the exclusion of interest and hence the contention cannot be
accepted. Apart from what is stated in the order the fact
2024:KER:67921
MFA (ECC) NO. 4 OF 2017
remains that there is no evidence tendered by the appellant to
show that the condition for excluding the interest liability was
satisfied i.e. the insured did not comply with the requirements
laid down under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The
specific case put forward before the Commissioner as well as
before this Court was that immediately after the accident the
employer had informed the Insurance Company and forwarded
all the documents. It is also seen that the claimants had to
approach this Court for compelling the Insurance Company to
process the payment. In such circumstances, I do not find
anything wrong in the order mulcting the liability of payment
of interest on the Insurance Company since the delay in
approaching the Commissioner has been satisfactorily
explained and the appellant was found to be at fault.
2. The counsel for appellant has placed reliance
on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India
2024:KER:67921
MFA (ECC) NO. 4 OF 2017
Assurance Co. Ltd vs Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya &
Anr. [2006 (2) KLT 667]. In the said judgment also, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated that unless one is in a
position to void the exclusion clause concerning liability for
interest and penalty imposed on the insured on account of its
failure to comply with the requirements of the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923, the insurer cannot be liable to the
insured for those amounts. The conclusion of the
Commissioner cannot hence be held to be against what is
stated in the said judgment.
3. The counsel for the claimants placed before
me the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Ajaya
Kumar Das & Anr. Vs. Divisional Manager & Anr. [2022
LiveLaw (SC) 102], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in
addition to the compensation and interest awarded, awarded
costs quantified at Rs.50,000/- to the claimant on a finding
2024:KER:67921
MFA (ECC) NO. 4 OF 2017
that the insurer had compelled the claimants to move the
Hon'ble Supreme Court against a palpably erroneous order of
the High Court, which was passed in an appeal filed beyond
limitation by the insurer and thus the Insurance Company had
used its position of dominance to evade the cause of justice.
In the above circumstances, I do not find any reason
to interfere with the order of the Commissioner. The appeal
fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI
JUDGE
mpm
