IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the liability of the insurer to pay compensation is based on the failure to prove non-adherence to safety measures by the employer, the assessment of the deceased's income is upheld based on statutory provisions, and interest is liable to be paid from the date of the accident.

JUDGMENT :

The above appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the judgment dated 03.03.2016 passed in ECA.No.70/2014 in the file of XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-23), Bengaluru[Hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal'].

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that on 24.05.2012 one Paresh Sarkar[Hereinafter referred as 'Deceased'] was working as a unskilled worker at the project site Manthri Espana, under the Respondent No.1 when in the course of his employment, he slipped and fell down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, the Petitioners filed a petition under Section 10 of the Employers Compensation Act[Hereinafter referred as 'Act'] arraying the employer as Respondent No.1 and the insurer as Respondent No.2.

4. The petitioners were the parents, brother and sister of the deceased. The employer and the insurer entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed their statement of objections. The petitioner No.1 was examined as PW.1. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked in evidence. The representative of the employer was examined as RW.1. The representative of insurer was examined as RW.2. and the investigator of the insurer was examined as RW.3. Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.7 were marked in evidence. The Tribunal by it judgment dated 03.03.2016 allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.8,90,480/-together with interest at 12% per annum and directed Respondent No.2 -insurer to pay the compensation awarded. Being aggrieved the present appeal is filed by the insurer.

5. Learned counsel for the insurer vehemently contended that Respondent No.1 -owner did not follow the safety measures. Hence, the insurer ought not to be fastened with the liability to pay the compensation awarded. Further it was contended that the petitioners have categorically averred in the claim petition that the deceased was paid to be Rs.175/- per day and the employer having stated that the deceased was being paid the said amount, the liability of the insurer ought to be restricted to pay compensation commensurate with the wages that was been paid to the deceased. Learned counsel for the insurer further submits that the Tribunal has awarded compensation at 12% per annum from the date of petition and that the interest is required to be awarded at 12% after thirty days of the date of the award. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the above appeal and setting aside the judgment passed by the Tribunal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the finding of the Tribunal both on liability and quantum is just and proper and seeks for dismissal of the appeal filed by the insurer.

7. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. The questions that arise for consideration are:

"i) Whether the insurer has proved that no safety measures were adopted by the employer so as to exonerate the insurer from payment of the compensation?

ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-per month?

iii) Whether the interest at 12% is liable to be paid from the date of the petition?"

Reg. Question No.(i):-

8. To the claim made by the petitioners, the Respondent No.1-employer as well as Respondent No.2-insurer have filed their separate statement of objections. The insurer in its statement of objection has stated that the liability of the insurer is as per the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. That the insured was required to take all reasonable precaution and comply with all the statutory obligations. That the employer -insured having violated terms and conditions of the policy, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation.

9. The representative of the employer examined himself a