Insurance companies are not liable for interest or penalties under workmen's compensation policies unless explicitly stated in the policy; responsibility for such payments typically lies with the employer.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant-insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 5.10.2011 passed by the Ex-officio Commissioner, Surat (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Commissioner") in W.C. (F) Case No.56 of 2008, whereby the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,51,080/- with 6% simple interest favour of original claimants.

2. The short facts giving rise to present appeal are that the deceased was working with original respondent No.1 i.e. M/s. Nishiko as an Wireman. On 14.05.2007 when the deceased removing the fitting of Pole No.S.B. 29 on Sardar Bridge, at that time, suddenly pole was broken and fallen down on ladder. Due to the said incident, the deceased lost his balance and fell down with the ladder. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital, where he was declared as 'dead' after initial treatment.

2.1 Thereafter, original claimant Nos. 1 to 3 had preferred Workmen's Compensation (Fatal) Application No.56 of 2008 before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for compensation.

2.3 After hearing both the parties and after evaluating the evidence placed on record, the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,51,080/- with 6% simple interest in favour of original claimants.

2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award of the learned Commissioner, the insurance company-original respondent No.2 has filed present appeal.

3. Heard Mr. Palak H. Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Kapadia, learned advocate for respondent No.4 (hereinafter referred to as "opponent No.1").

4. Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the the appellant insurance company is not held liable for the alleged accident to indemnify opponent No.1 since, the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the opponent No.1. He has also submitted that it was clear breach of the condition stipulated in the policy document, more particularly condition No.3.

4.1 Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the panchnama was drawn at the place of accident and it appears that the deceased has not weared helmet and no safety belt was provided and this is clear breach of the condition, as opponent No.1 has not provided proper safety measures to the workmen and the deceased died because of negligence of opponent No.1 and therefore, under such circumstances, the appellant insurance company is not held liable for the alleged accident to indemnify opponent No.1. It is also further contended that learned Commissioner has also committed an error while interpreting the condition of the insurance policy, by treating the same as 'simple policy' and not under the 'workmen compensation', in fact, from the perusal of the impugned policy, on the cover note, it is mentioned that it is policy under 'Employers Liability (WC), Workmen Compensation (General)' and thus, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also contended that even as per the policy document, legal provision was mentioned with regard to the liability to pay the interest and penalty and thus, the Court has exceeded its jurisdiction which is not vested with it and therefore, impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4.2 Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel for the appellant has referr