The insurer's liability in a Workmen's Compensation case is dictated by the declared salary in the policy, and penalties for delay must comply with statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT :

(UMESH M. ADIGA, J.)

This appeal is filed by the insurer - respondent No.2, against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and M.A.M.A.C.T, Tarikere, as well as the Commissioner under the Workmens' Compensation Act (for short 'Commissioner'), in ECA No.12/2014.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the ECA proceedings.

3. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Srinivas was an employee and working as a Supervisor with respondent No.1. On 16.12.2008 around 09.30 a.m. when he was on duty in the Coffee Estate, due to pressure of work, stress and strain he had a severe heart attack; immediately he was taken to hospital, wherein he was declared as brought dead. Deceased died during the course of employment. He was aged about 36 years at the time of his death. He was drawing a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. Claimants are his wife and children. They filed claim petition under the provisions of Workmens' Compensation Act.

4. Respondent No.1 is employer admitted that deceased Srinivas was working as a Supervisor under Respondent No. 1 and that he was drawing the wages as per the Minimum Wages Act. The death of Srinivas due to heart attack is also not in dispute. According to contentions of the respondent, since the respondent company had purchased the policy of insurance covering the risk of its employees, Respondent No.2- insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

5. The Insurer-Respondent No.2 in its written statement denied the contents of the claim petition. It has admitted the policy of insurance and contended that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of policy of insurance. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2.

6. The Commissioner framed necessary issues based on the rival contentions of the parties.

7. The claimants to prove their case, examined claimant No. 1 as PW1 and got marked exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Respondent No.1 examined RW1 and Respondent No.2 examined RW2. Respondents marked two documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the materials available on record, the Commissioner held that there exists `employer' and `employee' relationship between deceased and respondent No.1 and assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and his age as 36 years and applied factor as 194.64 and awarded compensation of Rs.97,320/-. In the operative portion of the certified copy of the impugned award, it was mentioned as Rs.1,45,980 but in the original award it was corrected as Rs.97,320/-.

The Commissioner directed the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum and further directed to pay Rs.48,660/- (50% of the compensation amount) as penalty to the State Government.

8. Being aggrieved by the said award, insurer-respondent No.2 preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the appeal memorandum.

9. This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:

"(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding total compensation of Rs.1,45,980/- with interest of 9% p.a., when the employee died during the natural cause of heart attack, which was not due to the employment during the course of employment?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in directing the appellant to pay entire compensation, penalty of 50% and interest thereon by ignoring the pleadings, evidence of the appellant and contents of the policy marked at Ex.R-1 in the facts and circumstances of the present case?"

10. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as respondent Nos.2 and4.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant argued in l