Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
M.G. Sewlikar, J.
National Insurance Co Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Shaikh Hasina Sharfuddin & Ors. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 1124 of 2020
Decided On : 05-03-2021
Employee's Compensation Act - Insurance Company - Section 30 - 4A - Summary of Acts and Sections: Employee's Compensation Act, Section 30, Section 4A - The court discussed the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation to the deceased worker and the interpretation of the insurance policy. The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation as the deceased was covered under the policy. The court also ruled that the insurance company cannot avoid its liability to pay interest and penalty for delayed compensation, as it is a statutory liability and any agreement contrary to the statutory provisions would be opposed to public policy.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased worker died in an accident at the construction site, and the insurance company refused to pay compensation. The court found that the deceased was covered under the insurance policy and held the insurance company liable to pay compensation with interest and penalty for delayed payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the deceased worker and that the insurance company cannot avoid its liability to pay interest and penalty for delayed compensation.
Issues: The issues were whether the insurance company had insured only the labourers of the contractor and whether the insurance company can avoid the liability to pay interest or penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deceased was covered under the insurance policy and the insurance company was liable to pay compensation. The court also ruled that the insurance company cannot avoid its liability to pay interest and penalty for delayed compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation with interest and penalty for delayed payment.
JUDGMENT
M G Sewlikar, J. - Heard both the sides at admission stage.
2. This appeal is preferred by original Respondent No. 4, the insurance company, under section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, against the judgement and order passed by the learned Commissioner, Latur, in Application (W. C. A.) No. 14/2014 whereby the application was partly allowed.
3. Facts giving rise to this appeal can be stated in brief as under:-
The original Applicant, Respondent No. 1 herein, is the wife of the deceased Sharfuddin Shaikh. The deceased Sharfuddin Shaikh was working as a labour with Respondents No. 2 to 4. He was getting salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Respondent No. 1 had issued a tender for the construction of washrooms. Respondent No. 3 filled the tender. Since Respondent No. 3 had qduoted minimum price, contract was issued to respondent No. 3. The deceased was engaged on the construction of washroom as a labour. When the deceased was working on the site of construction, a wall collapsed over the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. The deceased was shifted to Sasoon Hospital, Pune but was declared dead. Post-mortem was conducted and the incident was reported to the police station. The original Applicant-respondent No. 1 herein learned that the original respondents No. 2 and 3 had insured the workers working on the site of construction. Therefore, compensation was claimed from the Respondents. Respondents refused to pay the compensation, therefore, the Appellant has preferred this claim.
4. Respondent No. 2 herein Municipal Corporation filed its written statement at Exhibit CA - 4. It has contended that Respondent No. 3 herein was allotted the work of construction of washrooms. Responndent No. 2 was informed about taking workmens compensation policy. The deceased worked for 2 - 3 days. The deceased was getting daily wages of Rs. 158.33/-. Since Respondent No. 2 was allotted the work of construction of washroom, respondent No. 1 is not liable to pay compensation to the Applicant/ Respondent No. 1.
5. Respondents No. 3 and 4 filed their written statement at Exhibit CB-3. They contended that respondent No. 3 was executing the work through daily labourers. They had appointed one Shri Dhotre, the labour contractor, to supply the labour. Therefore, they were unaware about the deceased working at the site of the construction. The incident occurred because of the negligence of labour contractor. Therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation to the Applicant.
6. Respondent No. 4 (the Appellant herein) filed its written statement at Exhibit CD - 5. Respondent No. 4 contended that the deceased was working under the employment of respondent No. 3. There was no employer-employee relationship between respondent No. 4 and the deceased. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the Applicant/Respondent No. 1.
7. The learned Commissioner framed issues below Exhibit O-7. The learned Commissioner hold that the deceased died of an injury in an accident happened on the 21st May, 2013, arising out of and in the course of his employment with Respondents No. 2 and 3. He further held that the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 50 years and he was drawing wages of Rs. 6,500/- per month. Accordingly, he awarded compensation of Rs. 4,97,543/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with 50% penalty. Respondents No. 2 to 4 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. This order is impugned in this appeal.
8. Heard Shri Mundada, learned counsel for the Appellant, learned counsel Shri Valse holding for Shri Venjane, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Shri Hon, learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 2.
9. Learned counsel Shri Mundada argued that the Municipal Corporation had given the contract to Respondent No. 3. It is an admitted position that Respondent No. 3 allotted the work to Respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 4 engaged one Dhotre and the said
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
