Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Suri @ Suryakumar on 7 September, 2021
C.M.A.No.1718 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.1718 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.13316 of 2018
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Oriental House, First Floor,
No.216/115, Prakasam Salai,
Broadway, Chennai - 108. .. Appellant
Vs.
1. Suri @ Suryakumar
2. Sri Amman Agency,
No.17/18, Manali New Town,
Chennai - 103 .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 12.03.2018,
made in E.C.Case No.556 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Commissioner
for Workmen's Compensation (Joint Commissioner of Labour -2), Chennai -
600 006.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Vinod
For Respondent 1 : Mr.T.Ananthasekar
For Respondent 2 : No appearance
-----
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/9
C.M.A.No.1718 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(The case has been heard through video conference)
This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 12.03.2018,
passed by the Joint Commissioner of Labour - I, Teynampet, Chennai - 600
006, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner') in E.C.No.556 of 2013.
2. The appellant / Insurance Company has challenged the impugned
order on the following Substantial Questions of Law:
"1. Whether the appellant insurer has
statutory liability to pay interest under Employees
Compensation Act, 1923 ?
2. Is the appellant insurer liable to pay
interest on award amount, either as per Statute or
as per the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy Ex.R-1 ?
3. Is the appellant entitled to contract against
the Statute in regard to payment of interest on
award amount ?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1718 of 2018
3. The learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this
Court to the insurance policy, which is marked as Ex.R1 before the
Commissioner and would submit that the Commissioner has erroneously
fixed the monthly income of the first respondent/petitioner at Rs.8,000/-
based on the Schedule in the Workmen Compensation Act. According to
him, under the insurance policy (Ex.R1), the appellant insurance company is
liable to pay compensation based on the monthly income of the first
respondent/petitioner at only Rs.3,000/-. The learned counsel would further
submit that under the Workmen Compensation Act, there is no statutory
liability cast upon the insurance company to pay compensation and they are
liable to pay compensation only in accordance with the contract namely the
insurance policy (Ex.R1). In support of his submissions, the learned counsel
for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to the following authorities
viz.,
(a) P.J.Narayan Vs. Union of India reported 2004 ACJ 452; and
(b) Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and others Vs. National
Insurance Co. Ltd., and others reported in CDJ 2014 SC 013.
4. After referring to the aforementioned authorities, the learned
counsel would submit that the Workmen Compensation Act cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1718 of 2018
equated with the Motor Vehicles Act, where in the said Statute, there is
statutory liability cast upon the insurance company to pay the compensation,
whereas, in the Workmen Compensation Act, the insurance company is
liable to pay compensation only in accordance with the contract i.e., the
insurance policy.
5. Further according to the learned counsel, in the impugned order
passed by the Commissioner, the Commissioner has erroneously fixed the
monthly income of the first respondent/petitioner at Rs.8,000/-, which is not
in accordance with the contract i.e. the insurance policy (Ex.R1) and the
Commissioner ought to have fixed the monthly income of the first
respondent/petitioner only at Rs.3,000/-. He would also further submit that
the appellant insurance company is also not liable to pay interest as it is not
incorporated in the contract i.e. insurance policy (Ex.R1). The learned
counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the findings of the
Commissioner in the impugned order and would submit that even though the
appellant insurance company has taken the plea that they are liable to pay
compensation only as per the contract i.e. insurance policy (Ex.R1), there is
no discussion with regard to the said plea in the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1718 of 2018
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent/petitioner would submit that Workmen Compensation Act, being
a welfare legislation, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is
correct, as according to him, the appellant insurance company will have to
pay the compensation amount as determined by the Commissioner and
thereafter recover the same from the employer namely the second respondent
herein. He would also submit that the accident victim namely the first
respondent is now in a pathetic condition and therefore no prejudice will be
caused to the appellant insurance company if the compensation amount, as
determined by the Commissioner, is paid and thereafter recover it from the
employer viz., the second respondent herein.
7. It is settled law that under the Motor Vehicles Act, there is a
statutory liability on the part of the insurance company to pay compensation
under Section 147 of the said Act. But under the Workmen Compensation
Act, there is no such statutory liability cast upon the insurance company.
The compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act is payable by the
insurance company only in accordance with the contract entered into
between the employer and the insurance company and in the instant case, the
insurance policy (Ex.R1). Under the insurance policy (Ex.R1) the liability of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1718 of 2018
the insurance company is mentioned in Sl.No.1, which reads as follows:
Sr.No Name of the Contractor Occupation Labour (%) Amount of Contract
1 Labourers - 20 Loading and 100 7,20,000
Unloading
8. In the counter statement filed by the appellant insurance company
before the Commissioner, they have taken a specific stand that they are
liable to pay compensation only in accordance with the contract i.e.,
insurance policy (Ex.R1). As seen from the oral evidence of R.W.1, the
official of the appellant insurance company, he has also raised a specific
stand that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation only as per
the contract of the conditions of the insurance policy (Ex.R1). Despite the
pleading to that effect as well as evidence adduced to that effect, the
Commissioner has not discussed that plea in the impugned order. This being
the case, when a legal issue has been raised, the Commissioner ought to have
considered the same on merits and in accordance with law. The judgements
relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant referred to
supra have also not been considered in the impugned order.
9. Though the learned counsel for the first respondent made
submissions that Workmen Compensation Act being a welfare legislation,
the appellant can very well pay the compensation amount as determined by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1718 of 2018
the Commissioner and recover the same from the employer, he has to satisfy
this Court by precedents as well as through the provisions under the
Workmen Compensation Act, which enable the first respondent to receive
the compensation on that basis.
10. After giving due consideration to the aforementioned factors and
in view of the fact that the Commissioner has not considered the plea of the
appellant as raised in this appeal, the matter will have to be remanded back
to the Commissioner for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance
with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 12.03.2018,
passed by the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation (Joint
Commissioner of Labour-2), Chennai - 600 006 is hereby set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the very same Commissioner, who shall permit
both the parties to adduce further evidence, if they so desire, in addition to
the already existing evidence which is available on record and thereafter
pass orders on merits and in accordance with law and after due consideration
of the contentions raised by the appellant in this appeal, within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1718 of 2018
aforesaid directions, this civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of. This
Court make it clear that till the proceedings are finally disposed of by the
Commissioner, pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the first
respondent/petitioner shall not withdraw any further sum lying to the credit
of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Chennai - 6, in
E.C.No.556 of 2013. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed. No costs.
07.09.2021
kk
To
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Coimbatore.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1718 of 2018
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
kk
C.M.A.No.1718 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.13316 of 2018
07.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
