The court ruled that the employer must pay timely compensation and could face penalties for delays under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT :

Umesh M Adiga, J.

Both these appeals arise out of award passed by the Commissioner of Labour under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and XXI Additional Small Causes Judge, MACT (SCCH-23), Bengaluru (for short 'the Commissioner) dated 07.06.2016 passed in E.C.A. No.493/2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. Both the appeals are admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:

1) Whether Commissioner is justified in directing insurer to pay interest contrary to terms of insurance policy?

2) Whether Commissioner is justified in not accepting contentions of claimant that deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month when employer was not disputed the same?

3) Whether Commissioner is justified in not directing the employer to pay penalty when admittedly employer had not deposited the admitted compensation within 30 days from the date of incident?

4. The brief facts of the case are that, one Mufaz-Ul-Haque was working with respondent No.1 as his employee and was doing centering work at his instructions. There existed employee and employer relationship between deceased and respondent No.1. On 28.06.2014 at around 4:30 p.m., the deceased during the course of his employment and as per the directions of respondent No.1, was working in an ongoing project i.e., Raga Apartment site situated at Kannur village. At that time, he accidentally fell down from 12^th floor of the said building. As a result he sustained head injuries and died on the spot. The dead body was shifted to Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Medical College. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the claimants. Claimants are parents of the deceased.

5. It is further case of the claimants that the deceased was aged about 25 years. He was drawing salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. Claimants were depending upon his earnings. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation.

6. Before the Trial Court, respondent No.1 in his written statement pleaded ignorance about the relationship between deceased and claimants. It is further contended that the death of Mufaz-Ul-Haque was due to his own negligence. Therefore, claimants are not entitled for compensation. Respondent No.1 admitted that deceased was an employee and was working under him and that the incident had occurred during the course of employment. He further contended that in case if the compensation is awarded, respondent No.2 shall be directed to pay the same. With these reasons, respondent No.1 prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1.

7. Respondent No.2 - insurer denied the contentions of the claimants and also contended that it is not liable to indemnify respondent No.1. It denied the relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and respondent No.1. It also contended that the petition is not maintainable as per the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. It further contended that as per the Workmen's Compensation policy taken by respondent No.1, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay interest or penalty. With these reasons, respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the petition against it.

8. The claimants to prove their claim examined two witnesses as PW.1 and 2 and marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. Respondent No.2 has examined one witness as RW.1 and marked exhibits as Exs.R1 to 3.

9. The Trial Court after hearing both the partie