Insurer liable for compensation and 12% interest to contractor's employee listed in policy schedule despite general exclusion clause not disclosed therein; principal employer liable under contracting provisions, contractor not necessary party; wages including benefits sustainable.

The appellant-Insurance Company, by filing present appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (in short referred to as ‘the EC Act’), has assailed impugned order dated 20th April, 2013 passed by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Court No.2, Mandi H.P. in case W.C.A. No. 15/2011/2010, preferred under the EC Act, whereby appellant- Insurance Company being insurer of Principal Employer has been directed to deposit the amount awarded in favour of claimants amounting to Rs.3,14,880/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 17th July, 2007 i.e. from one month after the date of accident till deposit/payment of the amount.

2. The parties shall be referred as per their status before the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, for convenience.

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the record.

4. In present case, claimants had preferred claim petition against respondent No.1 United India Insurance Company Limited (appellant herein) and respondent No.2 M/s Fermenta Biotech Limited (the Principal Employer) (respondent No.5 herein) claiming compensation on account of death of employee of respondent No.2, deceased Kesar Singh, who was husband of claimant No.1, father of claimants No.2 and 3 and son of claimant No.4.

5. The undisputed facts in this case are that deceased Kesar Singh was working as a Helper in the factory of respondent No.2 since 1.4.2006 on monthly salary of Rs.2500/- plus other benefits to the tune of Rs.500/- per month. He had been working in the factory in night shift from 10 PM to 6 AM.

6. On 17.6.2007, when Kesar Singh was coming to attend his duty and reached near the factory gate, he was hit by some unknown vehicle resulting into his death on the spot in front of the factory gate due to head injury.

7. After service of respondents, pleadings were completed. Evidence was led by parties and, thereafter, by appreciating the evidence on record, the Commissioner awarded the compensation, referred supra, in favour of claimants directing the Insurance Company to pay the same to claimants by indemnifying the Principal Employer-respondent No.2.

8. It is apt to record that deceased was hired by respondent No.2, through a contractor Laxman Singh, for working in the factory of respondent No.2 for loading and unloading purpose and he was being paid salary to the tune of Rs.2500/- and other benefits through Laxman Singh contractor.

9. Respondent No.2, the Principal Employer, had purchased the Insurance Policy for the Workers Compensation (General) with respect to the employer’s liability under the EC Act for 33 number of employees as evident from the Insurance Policy Schedule Ext.RW1/B placed on record along with list of 33 employees wherein deceased Kesar Singh was included at Sr. No. 25.

10. Workers Compensation (General) Policy has also been placed on record as Ext.RW1/A by the Insurance Company.

11. Present appeal was admitted on 22nd December, 2022 on the following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the liability to pay compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, can be fastened on the insurer for the death of the employee of the contractor of the insured when there is a specific exception clause in the policy which excludes such a liability?

2. Whether the claim petition is not liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the employer of the deceased workman as a party respondent?

3. Whether