The Insurance Company is liable to pay interest for delayed compensation under the Employees Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been directed against an award dated 29th February, 2016, passed by the Court of Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner) Jammu, (hereinafter referred to as ‘ALC’), vide which the claimant- respondent No.1, has been held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1, 77840 and Rs. 298712 as interest for delayed payment and while respondent No.2 has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs to the claimant/respondent No.1, in terms of the Insurance Policy, appellant has been fastened with the liability to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 2.76552 with ALC within 30 days of the passing of award failing which same is to recovered as arrears of land revenue by invoking Section 31 of the Employees Compensation Act (for short “the Compensation Act’).

2. Shorn of verbosity, relevant facts of the case are that respondent No.1 came to be engaged as a Casual Employee by the Commandant, 60 Battalion B.S.F - respondent No.4 on the wages of Rs. 100/ per day, for border fencing and flood lighting work near own post Tube Well-5, B.O.P Abdullian, EX-60 Bn/B.S.F on 23.02.2023. While he was performing his duties, he met with an accident of mine blast injury with crush injury left foot. He was evacuated to Government Medical College, Jammu, and Syme’s Amputation was done on 23.02.2003. Respondent No.1 preferred a claim petition under the Compensation Act.

3. The claim petition was resisted by the appellants primarily on the ground that respondent No.1 sustained injuries in the mine blast due to his own negligence, carelessness and disobedience, since the claimant along with other civil labourers were strictly instructed to follow the cemented Pacca Path and to keep away from the Mine field on the border side, but the claimant/respondent No.1 disobeyed the instructions and exposed himself to the injury. However, it was contended by the appellants that since they had taken the insurance cover, therefore respondent No.2- Insurance Company was liable to indemnify and pay the amount of compensation.

4. On the other hand, respondent No.2 Insurance Company disputed the employer-employee relationship between the appellant and respondent No.1 to deny its liability.

5. Following issues came to be drawn by the ALC :-

(a) Whether the petitioner met with an accident during and in the course of employment with the respondents? OPP

(b) What were the wages and age of the petition at the time of accident? OPP

(c) Relief.

6. Respondent No.1-claim petitioner, besides himself appearing as a witness, examined PW Sat Pal. On the other hand, the appellants examined two witnesses and respondent No.2-Insurance Company also examined RW- Parvez, to prove its liability cover for sum insured of Rs. 2.00 lacs only. Pertinently, it was admitted by RW–Parvez while admitting the insurance policy that policy covers the date of accident and petitioner is covered under the policy.

7. Learned ALC on critical analysis of the evidence led on the rival sides and having regard to the legal position governing the field passed the impugned award as mentioned at the outset.

8. Although, appellants have questioned the impugned award on various grounds and substantial questions of law raised in the memo of appeal, however, Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned CGSC appearing for the appellants has relied upon “Vaid Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi & Ors” (1997) 8. SCC-1, to confine his challenge to the impugned award by contending that ALC has fallen in grave error of law to fasten liability on the appellants as the liability to pay interest on the principal amount under the Compensation Act is part and parcel of the statutory liability to be discharged by the Insurance Company-respondent No.2 in the present case.

9. Per contra, Mr. Rupinder Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company has relied upon “National Insurance Company Limited, Trichy Vs. Kathamuthu Bright Industries, Trichy” 1997 (4) LLN 698 and “New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs