The insurance policy did not cover the risk of a Security Guard, and the principle of pay and recovery is not applicable under the Employee’s Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant/original respondent no.2 impugns judgment and award dated 18.12.2023 passed by Ex-Officio Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation and Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani in Workmen’s Compensation Form Appeal No.03/2020. (Hereinafter, parties are referred to by their original status for the sake of convenience and brevity).

2. One Indar Khedekar was employed as Security Guard at establishment of respondent no.1 i.e. Bal Road Lines Private Limited. While he was on duty, an iron road fell on his body to which he succumbed. His dependents filed proceeding under Employee’s Compensation Act seeking compensation against employer, so also added appellant/insurer as party, who had issued employees compensation policy to cover risk of employees on establishment.

3. The appellant/insurer contested claim on the ground that insurance policy issued by them does not cover risk of Security Guard. The insurance cover is restricted to employees specified under policy.

4. The Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation framed issues, recorded evidence and finally allowed claim for compensation directing employer as well as insurer to pay compensation of Rs.6,77,760/- to claimants alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. The appellant/insurer assailed aforesaid judgment and award in this Appeal.

5. On 12.03.2025, Appeal was posted for admission before this Court and after considering submissions advanced, following substantial question of law has been framed.

“Whether in light of terms and conditions of coverage under the Insurance Policy issued by appellant, risk of deceased shall be deemed to be covered, thereby making appellant insurer liable to pay compensation jointly and severally along with employer/owner of vehicle.”

6. The parties were put to the notice that Appeal would be heard finally at the stage of admission. Accordingly, on 26.03.2025 respective parties advanced their submissions. However, matter was further adjourned for citation and reserved for judgment.

7. Mr. Kadethankar, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant invites attention of this Court to insurance policy issued in the name of establishment and submits that specified classes of employees of establishment are covered under policy. He would further invite attention of this Court to oral evidence of Mr. Shaikh Abdul Latif, employee of Insurance Company, who has explained terms and conditions of insurance contract. According to Mr. Kadethankar, categories and sub-categories of employees, who were given insurance cover did not extend cover to Security Guard. 8. Per contra, Mr. Shelke, learned Advocate appearing for respondents/claimants submits that in first category domestic servants in private residences or in personal service of employer’s residence in boarding house, club or hotel are covered. Even in sub-category, attendants are covered and, therefore, Security Guard can definitely be considered within scope of policy. In alternative, he submits that this Court may pass order in the nature of pay and recovery, since entire amount is already deposited with Commissioner. After releasing amount deposited by insurer, they may be given liberty to recover the same from employer.

9. I have carefully perused contents of insurance policy placed at Exhibit-31. The details of employees with monthly wages are specified in policy. The trade description of establishment is stated as “Transporter”. The policy schedule for employees compensation insurance depicts that insurance coverages are given in particular category, which are further sub-categorized. As per first column, 23 cleaners having monthly wages of Rs.8000/- are covered. In second column, 23 cleaners having monthly wages of Rs.20,000/- each are covered and in third column, four supervisor having monthly wages of Rs.15,000/- each are covered. The premium is accordingly charged.

10. The pleadings in the claim petition, particularly paragraph no.2 shows that respondent had employed deceased as Security Guar