Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
C.M. JOSHI, J.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Thayamma W/o Late Madegowda – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 784 of 2019
Decided On : 14-12-2023
Insurance Company - Workmen's Compensation - EC Act - 4(1B), 17 - The court discussed the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation and interest under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It interpreted the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and referred to previous judgments to determine the extent of the insurance company's liability.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, an employee at a sugar cane crushing factory, sustained burn injuries during work and subsequently died. The claimants sought compensation from the insurance company, contending that the deceased was covered under the insurance policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence and determined that the insurance company was liable to pay a portion of the compensation based on the terms of the insurance policy. It held that the interest on the compensation amount was not the responsibility of the insurance company, as per the policy terms.
Issues: The issues included establishing the deceased's employment, the cause of death, the salary, dependency of the claimants, and the liability of the respondents to pay compensation and interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the insurance policy terms and previous judgments regarding the liability of the insurance company under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Final Decision: The court modified the judgment and awarded a portion of the compensation to be paid by the insurance company, while the remaining compensation and interest were to be paid by the insured employer.
JUDGMENT :
C.M. JOSHI, J.
1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 17-09-2018 passed in ECA No. 64/2014 by the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, whereby a sum of Rs. 4,69,640/- has been awarded as compensation together with interest at 12% p.a. fastening liability on the Insurance Company on account of the death of Madegowda.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that, deceased Madegowda was the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 and was working under respondent No. 1 in Sugar Cane Crushing Factory engaged in preparation of Jaggary at Kopparayanakoppal, Srirangapatna, Mandya District. On 20.07.2014 at about 4.50 PM when the deceased was putting sugar cane bagasse into oven and two oxen were taking rounds near sugar cane furnace. At that time the wooden stick which was kept on the oxen hit the deceased Madegowda and he fell down in the sugar cane furnace and sustained burn injuries. He was taken to K.R. Hospital, Mysuru and admitted as inpatient and died on 23.07.2014. After conducting the post-mortem, the dead body was taken to their village and funeral and obsequies ceremonies were conducted. He was the only earning member of the family and the petitioners were depending on the deceased. The police have registered the case in UDR No. 40/2014 dated 24.07.2014. Respondent no. 1 being the employer has not helped the petitioners in any way. At the time of incident, the deceased was 60 years old and he was getting coolie of Rs. 300/- per day and the respondent No. 2 being the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. On issuance of notice, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have appeared and filed their objections. The respondent No. 1 has admitted that he is the owner of the sugar cane crushing machine/jaggary unit and contended that the deceased was getting Rs. 200/- per day as coolie and the respondent no. 2 is the insurance company and the crushing machine was insured with respondent no. 2 and therefore, the respondent No. 2 is liable to pay the compensation.
4. The respondent No. 2 contended that the petitioners are the residents of Taralli village, Beguru Hobli, Gundlupete Taluk, Chamarajanagar District and the alleged accident has occurred in Mandya District and therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the matter. It has also contended that the petitioners are taking undue advantage of the names referred as Mahadevegowda and Madegowda. The husband of petitioner No. 1 was not getting the alleged salary under the respondent No. 1. It has contended that the respondent No. 1 has taken employers liability other than colliers policy from the respondent under the policy no. 422800/48/2015/633 covering for the period from 17.07.2014 to 16.07.2015. If there is any violation of condition, it is not liable to indemnify the respondent No. 1 as the petitioners and the respondent no. 1 have not produced any documents to show that the deceased was working under respondent No. 1 and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. The Tribunal on the basis of the above pleadings, framed the following issues:
2. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained during the course of his employment?
3. Whether the petitioners prove the salary of the deceased under the employment of respondent no. 1 as stated in the petition?
4. Whether the petitioners prove they were the dependents of the deceased?
5. Whether the petitioners prove that the respondents are liable to pay compensation and interest as prayed in the petition?
6. What order?”
6. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence of PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P8 on behalf of petitioners as no oral or documentary evidence is adduced by the respondents, heard the arguments by both sides and
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the insurance policy terms and the extent of the insurance company's liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
An insurer is not liable for interest on compensation awarded under the Employees Compensation Act if the policy expressly excludes such liability.
The insurance company is not liable for interest payments under the Workmen's Compensation Act; liability rests with the employer to pay compensation and associated interest.
An insurance company is not liable for interest on workmen's compensation awards, as liability rests solely with the employer under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company is primarily liable to pay compensation to the workmen under the Workmen Compensation Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the interest burden under Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, shifts to the Insurance Company.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
