[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pawandeep Singh Pabla vs The Madhya Pradesh Flying Club Ltd. ... on 9 February, 2026
1 MA-2855-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
MISC. APPEAL No. 2604 of 2020
M/S MADHYA PRADESH FLYING CLUB LTD.
Versus
PAWANDEEP SINGH PABLA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri G.S. Patwardhan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Mukul Bhutda, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Gilke, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 2742 of 2020
THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
PAWAN DEEP SINGH PABLA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri S.V. Dandwate, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Gilke, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
MISC. APPEAL No. 2855 of 2020
PAWANDEEP SINGH PABLA
Versus
THE MADHYA PRADESH FLYING CLUB LTD. THROUGH
MANAGER DEVI AHILYA BAI HOLKAR AIRPORT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Gilke, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri G.S. Patwardhan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Mukul Bhutda, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 16-02-2026
15:45:04
2 MA-2855-2020
Heard on : 05.12.2025
Pronounced on : 09.02.2026.
.......................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
These appeals have been filed by the respective appellants against the
common award dated 17.03.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Employee's
Compensation, Labour Court, Indore in Case No.48/WC/2015 (NF).
1.1 Appeal No.2604/2020 has been filed by the employer (Madhya
Pradesh Flying Club Limited) challenging the quantum of compensation.
1.2 M.A. No.2742/2020 has been filed by the Insurance Company
against the direction to pay Rs.10,00,000/- again in view of the provisions of
Section 8 of the Employee's Compensation Act and Appeal No.2855/2020
has been filed by the employee also on the question of the quantum of
compensation.
1.3 As all three interested parties have filed their respective appeals,
for the sake of convenience, they are hereinafter referred to as 'the employer',
'the Insurance Company' and 'the claimant or injured'.
2. The facts relevant to the case are that the deceased Arshad Noor
Qureshi was employed as Manager (Co-ordination) with the employer. The
employer M/s Madhya Pradesh Flying Club was operating registered aircraft
being registration number VT EUE (Victor Tango Eco Uniform Echo),
Model : Cessna-152.
2.1 On 19.11.2014 at around 10:45 AM, deceased Arshad Noor was
3 MA-2855-2020
piloting the said aircraft. Along with him, one Pawan Deep Singh Pabla
(injured) was also seated in the aircraft. While landing, the aircraft lost
balance and as the pilot Arshad Noor could not control it, the aircraft crashed
into the ground and was damaged resulting in grievous injuries to both the
occupants.
2.2 Arshad Noor succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said
accident and Pawan Deep Singh sustained grievous injuries to both his legs,
spinal bone and other parts of his body. Both were rushed by the personnel
of employer to Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Indore,
where Arshad Noor was declared dead and Pawan Deep was admitted for
treatment.
2.3 An inquest was registered in terms of Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. at
Inquest No.88/2014.
2.4 The deceased Arshad Noor was 28 years of age at the time of the
accident and Pawan Deep was 25 years of age. The aircraft in question was
insured with the Insurance Company under Aircraft Insurance Policy which
covered the risk of passengers under personal accident insurance to the
extent of Rs.10,00,000/- only.
3. The case of the employer was that the actual wages of Rs.30,000/-
cannot be taken into consideration in view of the upper limit provided in
Section 4 of the Employee's Compensation Act which according to the
employer was Rs.8,000/- per month. It was thus contended that the entire
4 MA-2855-2020
amount of compensation had already been paid through the insurer by
issuance of cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- which had duly been received.
3.1 The Insurance Company on the other hand denied its liability by
asserting that it had insured the employer only under Aircraft Insurance
Policy and that there was no insurance coverage for any liability arising
under the Employee's Compensation Act.
3.2 The Labour Court based on pleadings of the respective parties,
framed as many as six issues. Upon consideration, it recorded a finding that
the claimant/injured was in the employment of the employer namely Madhya
Pradesh Flying Club and that he sustained injuries during the course of his
employment. It was further held that the accident occurred during the course
of 'employment' in terms of the provisions of the aforesaid Act. The Labour
court also concluded that the injured was earning Rs.30,000/- per month.
3.3 As such, compensation was awarded to the claimant to the tune of
Rs.39,04,380/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum out of which
an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was directed to be paid by the Insurance
Company and the remaining amount of Rs.29,04,380/- along with medical
expenses to the tune of Rs.4,62,659/- as well as the aforesaid interest was
directed to be paid by the employer.
3.4 While directing the above, the Labour Commissioner discarded the
contention of the Insurance Company that it had already discharged its
liability by paying cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- to the employer. The Labour
Commissioner held that in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the
5 MA-2855-2020
Employee's Compensation Act, the said amount was required to be deposited
with the Commissioner. As the Insurance Company had paid the amount to
the employer instead of depositing it with the Commissioner, the same could
not be treated as proper compliance with the statutory provision.
Consequently, a direction was issued to the Insurance Company to pay the
said amount.
3.5 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid directions, all three interested
parties have come before this Court.
Contention of employer :-
4. Learned senior counsel for the employer (Madhya Pradesh Flying
Club) mainly contends that the quantum of compensation awarded is
excessive. Learned senior counsel for the employer further submits that the
quantification of compensation has been done by taking into consideration
the wages of the injured at Rs.30,000/- per month which is contrary to the
provisions of Section 4 of the Employee's Compensation Act.
4.1 Learned senior counsel particularly lays emphasis on the
provisions of Section 4(1B) of the said Act and submits that the said
provision empowers the Central Government to issue notification
determining wages. The Central Government issued such notification on
31.05.2010 thereby fixing the monthly wages at Rs.8,000/per month-. As
such, it ought to have been treated as the outer limit / cap for wages and the
Labour Commissioner could not have considered the actual wages of
Rs.30,000/- which were being paid to the injured employee.
6 MA-2855-2020
Submission of learned counsel for the Insurance Company :-
5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the
Labour Commissioner erred in directing payment of Rs.10,00,000/- by the
Insurance Company by ignoring the admitted and established fact that the
Insurance Company had already paid a cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- to the
employer who in turn had paid the same to the claimants. He submits that the
witness of the insured (DW-1) in Para 14 of his cross examination has
expressly admitted receipt of the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. As such, the
direction to pay Rs.10,00,000/- again could not have been given.
5.1 He further submits that the Labour Commissioner erred in
resorting to the provisions of Section 8 of the Employee's Compensation Act,
which were not applicable in the present case for the reason that the
Insurance Policy was Aircraft Insurance Policy containing clear exclusion of
any liability under the Employee's Compensation Act. Consequently, the
compensation in the present case, in the context of Insurance Policy was not
covered under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. Thus, the impugned
award to that extent deserves to be modified.
Submission of the claimants :-
6. The claimants before adverting to the merits of the case, has
emphasised that the appeal filed by the employer is not maintainable for the
reason that the employer has not complied with the award. It is submitted
that the employer has neither deposited the entire amount payable in view of
7 MA-2855-2020
the proviso to section 30 of the aforesaid Act, as the full interest part has not
been deposited nor has the penalty, which became due, been deposited. It is
further contented that the employer has also failed to file the certificate of
deposit of the amount payable which was required to accompany the memo
of appeal.
6.1 As regards the merits of the case, learned counsel for the claimants
submits that the appeal filed by the employer does not involve any
substantial question of law. He submits that the provisions of the Employee's
Compensation Act were amended in the year of 2009. Since the accident
occurred in the year of 2014, the amended provisions would apply.
According to learned counsel, by virtue of the amendment, the issue relating
to the cap of Rs.8,000/- stood settled and the said amendment was considered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Sivaraman and Others vs.
Satishkumar and Another reported in (2020) 4 SCC 594 .
6.2 It is therefore contended that the actual wages of the deceased were
required to be taken into consideration. Learned counsel further submits that
although the Labour Commissioner has taken the salary of Rs.30,000/- per
month into account, he has completely ignored the incentive of Rs.350/- per
hour which was also being paid to the injured employee. He submits that the
witness of the employer Vikas (DW-1) has admitted in Para 5 of his
examination that the injured was receiving salary of Rs.30,000/- per month
along with incentive of Rs.350/- per hour. As such, according to learned
counsel for the claimants, the income of the injured/claimant ought to have
been taken at Rs.35,000/- per month and consequently, enhancement of
8 MA-2855-2020
compensation is warranted.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The findings and conclusions in M.A. No.2604/2020 (Employer's
Appeal) :-
Issue of maintainability of the appeal filed by the employer :-
8. The objection of the learned counsel for the claimants rests on the
requirement of the third proviso to Section 30 of the Employee's
Compensation Act. However, this Court while dealing with the said issue on
an earlier date in this appeal in the connected appeal has already held that the
defect of non-deposit of the entire amount is curable in nature.
8.1 In the present case, although the appellant deposited the entire
amount of compensation at the time of filing the appeal, however, the
interest part was not deposited. Accordingly, arguments were heard on the
question of maintainability of the appeal and vide order dated 08.09.2020, it
was held that for maintaining appeal in terms of third proviso to Section 30
of the Employee's Compensation Act, the interest part is also required to be
deposited. Pursuant to the said order, the employer in its appeal deposited the
interest part as well.
8.2 The submission of the learned counsel for the claimants is that
since the interest was not deposited within time, the employer has become
liable for payment of penalty also. However, considering the fact that while
9 MA-2855-2020
depositing the amount of compensation, the employer did not deposit the
interest amount by relying an order passed by this Court in M.A.
No.935/2015 whereby it was held that in terms of third proviso to section 30
the employer is required to deposit only principal amount and not the interest
part, thus this reason of not depositing the interest appears to be bonafide.
The said order of M.A. No. 935/2015 was considered by this court again and
while examining the said issue of pre-deposit, this Court held that in view of
the settled position of law, the said order was per incuriam. Consequently,
the interest amount was thereafter deposited by the employer.
8.3 In these peculiar circumstances, this Court is not inclined to
impose penalty upon the employer and the objection regarding
maintainability of the appeal is hereby overruled.
On Merits :-
9. This Court vide order dated 29.07.2024 framed following
substantial question of law.
"Whether, the learned Court below has failed to consider the
upper cap of Rs.8,000/- while calculating the amount of
compensation and whether the procedure adopted by the
Commissioner to calculate the amount was proper and
maintainable?"
9.1 The employer in its appeal has contended that the quantum of
compensation is excessive and is based on the erroneous conclusion that the
entire actual wages of Rs.30,000/- per month were required to be taken into
account, whereas in view of the cap of maximum wages at Rs. 8000/- entire
actual wages could not have been taken into consideration. However, in the
10 MA-2855-2020
considered view of this court, the issue regarding the cap on maximum
wages at Rs.8,000/- is no longer res integra .
9.2 The legislature in 2009 amended the provisions of Section 4 by
deleting Explanation No.2 which was related to the cap on the monthly
wages of an employee. Before this amendment the explanation No.2
provided that where the monthly wages of a workman exceeded Rs.4,000/-,
the monthly wages for the purposes of Clause (a) and (b) shall be deemed to
be Rs.4,000/- only.
9.3 As such, there was a clear cap on the maximum wages to be
considered for determining compensation under the Employee's
Compensation Act. However, Explanation No.2 was omitted by the Act 45
of 2009 with effect from 18.01.2010.
9.4 In its place, Section 1B was added to the effect that the Central
Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify for the
purposes of sub-section (1) the monthly wages in relation to an employee as
may be considered necessary. Pursuant to this provision, the Central
Government by a general notification issued in 2010 itself, specified
Rs.8,000/- as the maximum wages.
9.5 Accordingly, learned senior counsel for the employer submits that
Rs.8,000/- is the statutory cap and that the actual wages of the injured cannot
be considered.
9.6 The above amendment in the Employee's Compensation Act was
11 MA-2855-2020
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Sivaraman and
Others (Supra). In the said matter, the Hon'ble Apex Court keeping in view
the complexity of the issue, appointed a learned counsel as amicus curie . The
submissions of the learned amicus curie are recorded in Para 10 by the
Hon'ble Apex Court which are as under :-
"10. In appeal before this Court, the learned Amicus Curiae
urged that both the Commissioner and the High Court have
erred -- the Commissioner having adopted a figure of Rs
4000 per month and the High Court, Rs 8000 per month. The
learned Amicus Curiae submitted that in terms of the
provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the 1923 Act, where death
has resulted from injury, the compensation payable is an
amount equal to fifty per cent of the monthly wages of the
deceased employee multiplied by the relevant factor. The
relevant factor is specified in Schedule IV and for the
deceased who was 26 years' old on the date of the accident,
the multiplicand would be 215.28. The learned Amicus
Curiae submitted that under sub-section (1-B) of Section 4,
the Central Government is empowered to issue a notification
specifying, for the purposes of sub-section (1), the monthly
wages in relation to an employee as it may consider
necessary. However, it was submitted that the notification
does not impose a cap or ceiling on the monthly wages which
form the basis of calculating the compensation due and
payable. Where the actual wages of an employee are proved
to be in excess of the amount which is specified in the
notification, there is no bar in adopting the monthly wages so
proved in terms of Section 4(1)(a). The learned counsel
buttressed this submission by adverting to Act 45 of 2009,
which took effect from 18-1-2010 and deleted the deeming
provision in Explanation II to Section 4 [ "Explanation II.--
Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed four
thousand rupees, his monthly wages for the purposes of
clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be four thousand
rupees only;"] . Moreover, it was urged by the learned
Amicus Curiae that the method of calculating wages is
specified in Section 5. It was urged that clause (a) of Section
5 will be attracted to the present case where the employee
was, during a continuous period of not less than twelve
months immediately preceding the accident, in the service of
the employer."
9.7 These submissions were considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
and findings thereon were recorded in Paras 25 and 26 as under :-
12 MA-2855-2020
"25. The 1923 Act is a social beneficial legislation and its
provisions and amendments thereto must be interpreted in a
manner so as to not deprive the employees of the benefit of
the legislation. The object of enacting the Act was to
ameliorate the hardship of economically poor employees who
were exposed to risks in work, or occupational hazards by
providing a cheaper and quicker machinery for compensating
them with pecuniary benefits. The amendments to the 1923
Act have been enacted to further this salient purpose by
either streamlining the compensation process or enhancing
the amount of compensation payable to the employee.
26. Prior to Act 45 of 2009, by virtue of the deeming
provision in Explanation II to Section 4, the monthly wages
of an employee were capped at Rs 4000 even where an
employee was able to prove the payment of a monthly wage
in excess of Rs 4000. The legislature, in its wisdom and
keeping in mind the purpose of the 1923 Act as a social
welfare legislation did not enhance the quantum in the
deeming provision, but deleted it altogether. The amendment
is in furtherance of the salient purpose which underlies the
1923 Act of providing to all employees compensation for
accidents which occur in the course of and arising out of
employment. The objective of the amendment is to remove a
deeming cap on the monthly income of an employee and
extend to them compensation on the basis of the actual
monthly wages drawn by them. However, there is nothing to
indicate that the legislature intended for the benefit to extend
to accidents that took place prior to the coming into force of
the amendment." (emphasis supplied)
9.8 It is thus clear that the intention as observed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in amending the Employee's Compensation Act was to calculate
compensation on actual basis wherever the actual wages are determinable.
9.9 In the present case, the claimants have asserted that the injured
employee was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, which has been expressly
admitted by the employer. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court,
the Labour Commissioner did not err in quantifying the compensation by
taking wages of the injured employee at Rs.30,000/- which were actually
13 MA-2855-2020
being paid at the time of his accident and injury.
9.10 In view of the above analysis, the contentions raised by the
learned senior counsel are hereby discarded. Resultantly, the substantial
question of law is answered against the employer and in favour of the
employee.
In M.A. No.2855/2020 (Claimants' appeal):-
10. This Court vide order dated 29.07.2024 has framed following
substantial questions of law.
"(i) Whether the compensation awarded by the Labor
Commissioner is inadequate and not in accordance with
provisions of Employee's Compensation, Act?
(ii) Whether the wages includes the incentives received by
the pilot for flying the aircraft apart from the basic salary and
the Labour Commissioner erred in not giving any finding
upon it ?"
10.1 The main emphasis of learned counsel for the claimants is that
only Rs.30,000/- per month which was the salary of the injured was taken
into consideration while quantifying the compensation. However, it is
contended that the incentive of Rs.350/- per hour was completely ignored by
the Labour Commissioner. Learned counsel for the claimants relied on the
statement of Vikas (DW-1), who allegedly admitted that an incentive of
Rs.350/- per hour was also being paid to the injured.
10.2 However, the documents placed on record i.e. Exs. P-5 to P-9 do
not show any such incentive. In fact, some of the documents indicate a lower
14 MA-2855-2020
salary. There is complete absence of any material to demonstrate that the
injured was being paid an incentive Rs.350/- per hour. Moreover, the
claimants have not established the number of hours the injured flew per day
or the average flying in a month. In absence of such data, it is impossible to
arrive at a conclusion regarding the total incentive. In fact, the very payment
of Rs.350/- per hour is not established by evidence.
10.3 In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the findings recorded by the Labour Commissioner in this regard, however
the finality of the issue is left open as per subsequent paragraphs in this
order.
10.4 In view of the above, question No.1 and 2 are decided against the
claimants since the payment of the incentive is not established in view of the
evidence available on record as of now.
Consideration of I.A. No. 6680/2021 in M.A. No. 2604/2020 and
resultant decision in M.A. No. 2604/2020 and M.A. No.2855/2020 :
11. During the pendency of the present appeals, the employer has filed
an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC i.e. I.A. No.6680 of
2021, seeking to bring certain additional facts on record. One of the major
facts, which has been requested to be placed on record is that there was an
investigation, carried out pursuant to the accident of the aircraft and final
investigation report was submitted on 19.11.2014 by a Committee of Inquiry
(VT-EUE). According to the employer, inquiry was conducted by a
Committee, which included Assistant Director /Air Safety Officer etc.
15 MA-2855-2020
12. According to these documents, the claimant was sitting in the
aircraft without any permission and not during the course of his employer. It
has been stated that he was in complete breach of the provisions of Section
3(1)(b)(ii) of the Employee's Compensation Act as he had willfully
disobeyed the instructions issued for safety purposes. It is further submitted
that the claimant did not follow the rules framed by the Ministry of Civil
Aviation under the Aircraft Act, 1932 and that no person is permitted to
accompany or travel in an aircraft without due authorization. It is therefore
submitted that these facts change the entire complexion of the case at hand.
As such, the application is required to be taken on record and the matter
deserves to be remanded back to the Labour Commissioner for fresh
consideration.
13. Apart from this, the appellant has also filed an application i.e. I.A.
No.8647 of 2025 for amendment of the written statement filed before the
Labour Commissioner. While pressing the above two applications, it has
been stated that these facts could not have been brought on record earlier
despite due diligence for the reason that till the investigation was going on
and after the completion of the same, the investigation report was not
provided to the employer. It is further stated that the relevant documents
were not in possession of the employer and came to light only after the
passing of the impugned award.
14. Learned counsel for the claimants vehemently opposes these
applications on the ground that the Labour Commissioner is the final fact
16 MA-2855-2020
finding authority and that in an appeal under Section 30, no fact finding
exercise can be undertaken by the appellate Court as the scope of Section 30
is very limited.
15. In the considered view of this Court, learned counsel for the
claimant is correct in arguing that this Court cannot re-evaluate factual
findings by re-appreciation of evidence nor can any new material be accepted
or appreciated in these appellate proceedings. However, it is equally true that
the objection raised by learned counsel for the appellants by seeking to bring
new material on record goes to the root of the issue.
16. Learned counsel for the employer is also correct in stating that he
was not aware of the report, as the same was not available at the time when
evidence was recorded by the Labour Court.
17. In the considered view of this Court, apart from the substantial
questions of law framed earlier, the following substantial question of law is also
involved: "whether the claimant was travelling in the aircraft on his own volition
in breach of rules and not in the course of employment and whether in view of the
new material placed on record, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the
Labour Commissioner for fresh consideration on this issue so as to fix the
liability of the employer in view of the provisions of Section 3(1)(b)(ii) of the
Employee's Compensation Act ?"
17.1 Having regard to the analysis made herein above, this Court is of
the considered view that the issue raised by the employer in the present
appeal is not only germane but goes to the very core of the case.
17 MA-2855-2020
18. The liability of the employer wholly depends on this issue for the
reason that if wilful disobedience is proved, the employer may not be liable
to pay compensation.
19. In view of the above, the newly framed above substantial question
of law is answered in favour of the employer.
20. Consequently, the appeal of the employer as well as employee is
remanded back to the labour commissioner. As the matter is being remanded
to the Labour Commissioner, it is, in the considered view of this Court, just
and proper that both the parties be set at liberty to re-agitate their entire
matter before the Labour Commissioner. The claimant may raise his
arguments regarding the quantum of compensation, while the employer may
raise arguments on the issue of its liability and if necessary, on the question
of quantum of compensation, however not on the issues which have been
decided by this court in the present appeal regarding upper limit of the wages
which are to be considered, for the sake of clarity it is hereby held that entire
actual wages which were being paid are to be taken into account while
quantifying compensation.
In M.A. No.2742/2020 (Insurance Company's appeal) :-
21. This Court vide order dated 29.07.2024 has framed following
substantial question of law.
"Whether the learned Commissioner erred in directing the
insurer without considering the policy where the liability
under any employee liability or workmen compensation
legislation or any similar legislation having excluded under
18 MA-2855-2020
the policy and amount payable under: the policy for personal
accident cover having paid by the Insurance Company, still
whether the learned Commissioner erred in directing the
Insurance Company to pay again sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs
covered under the personal accident being contractual
liability ?"
21.1 The main emphasis of learned counsel for the Insurance
Company is that there was complete exclusion of any liability under the
Employee's Compensation Act in the Insurance Policy. He submits that the
policy in question was not intended to indemnify the employer for any
liability arising under the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act;
rather, it was an aircraft Insurance Policy.
21.2 A perusal of the Policy (Ex.D-1) shows that it contains the
following clause with respect to liability :
"It is understood and agreed that notwithstanding any
exclusion specifically relating to pilots and operational crew
in the Section of this Policy covering the liability of the
insured to passengers, such coverage shall extend to include
the liability of the insured to the pilots and operational crew
of the insured Aircraft, but excluding liability required to be
insured under the terms of any employers' liability or
workman's compensation legislation or any similar
legislation."
21.3 It is thus clear that the insurer while insuring the employer has
clearly made an stipulation in the insurance policy regarding exclusion of
any liability incurred by the employer under the terms employment or
workman's compensation legislation or any similar legislation. Therefore, it
is clear that the contract between the employer and the insurer did not cover
liability for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
21.4 Having concluded that the insurance cover did not extend to
19 MA-2855-2020
liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the next question is
whether compliance with Section 8 of the Act was required.
21.5 Section 8 of the Employee's Compensation Act provides that no
payment of compensation in respect of an employee whose injury has
resulted in death shall be made otherwise than by deposit with the
Commissioner and no such payment made directly by an employer shall be
deemed to be a payment of compensation.
21.6 The term 'compensation' is also defined in the Act, in Clause (c)
of sub-section (1) of Section 2 in the following manner :-
"compensation" means compensation as provided for by this Act.
21.7 As such, the term 'compensation' used in Section 8 refers to
compensation payable under the Employee's Compensation Act. However, in
the present case, the liability of the Insurance company is in no manner
related to the liability under the Act as concluded in above paragraphs.
22. Thus, in the present case, the Insurance Company has correctly
given cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- to the employer which was subsequently paid
to the claimant.
23. In this view of the matter, the liability under the Insurance Policy
has been fully discharged by the Insurance Company and the direction of the
Labour Commissioner to pay the said amount again by complying with the
provisions of Section 8 of the Act is not sustainable. As such, the substantial
questions of law in this appeal are answered in favour of the Insurance
20 MA-2855-2020
Company. It is hereby held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay
any further amount having already discharged its maximum liability of
Rs.10,00,000/- under the Aircraft Insurance Policy. Therefore, it is the
employer who is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation.
24. Accordingly, the appeal Nos.2742/2020 and 2855/2020 are hereby
remanded to the Labour Commissioner for recording evidence in view of the
facts and documents placed on record by way of application under Order XLI
Rule 27 of the CPC referred to above.
25. Consequently, Appeal No.2604/2020 and No.2855/2020 are
disposed of in above terms and Appeal No.2742/2020 of the Insurance
Company is allowed.
26. Let a copy of this order be kept in the above connected appeals.
No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Anushree
