Labour welfare legislation must be interpreted liberally.

(Civil Miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act (Act 111/1923) against the order passed in W.C. No.558 of 2002 dated 07.06.2004 by the Commission for Workmen's Compensation, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Salem.)

The Insurance Company is the appellant. The challenge is to the award of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Salem, dated 07.06.2004 in W.C. No. 558 of 2002.

2. One Mr. Anandavel was employed as Driller cum Helper in the rig unit fitted on a lorry bearing Registration No. CNP 4779. On 16.09.1996, when the rig unit was in operation, the said Anandavel was stated to have been electrocuted and died. The third respondent is the owner of the said rig unit. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased Anandavel, filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The said claim was resisted by the appellant contending that it had not issued any policy of insurance for the rig unit lorry in favour of the first opposite party covering the period of accident and that any award passed has to be satisfied by the 3rd respondent herein.

3. It is now reported by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 that during the pendency of this appeal, the first respondent passed away and therefore, whatever compensation awarded will have to be paid to the 2nd respondent alone, who is the mother of the deceased.

4. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation reached a conclusion that the deceased Anandavel got electrocuted and died while in the course of his employment and since the lorry along with the rig unit was covered by Ex. P4 policy, by virtue of the age of the deceased and the application of the relevant factor, the appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,81,879/- by way of compensation. Accordingly, the appellant was directed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days failing which, to pay 12% interest from the date of claim petition.

5. Mr. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that Ex.P4 policy did not cover the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased Anandavel inasmuch as there was no premium paid, specifically covering such nature of employment like that of the one for which the deceased Anandavel was employed by the 2nd respondent. Learned counsel placed heavy reliance upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Ayyadurai and S. Subramani reported in 2003 (2) Law Weekly 601. Since the controversy centres around the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant which is more or less supported by the above referred Division Bench Judgment, it will be appropriate to make a detailed reference to the said decision as well as the relevant policy conditions involved in that decision viz-a-viz the one involved in the case on hand.

6. In the case on hand, the description of the vehicle as mentioned in the policy Ex.P4 is a rig unit of Ashok Leyland make, Under the heading 'important notice', the specific stipulation mentioned in the policy is to the following effect:-

"subject to Terms Exception and Conditions of the Commercial vehicles Insurance B-Policy and IMT Endorsement mentioned herein 17,14,24,26 and 70."

The other particulars relating to the Policy that are required to be mentioned are under the column B Liability. The premium paid was:

1. Basic premium Rs. 120/-

2. Add: for Legal ability to passengers as

per ENDT.12 Rs. 50/-

3. Add: for Legal ability to Driver & for cleaner

as per ENDT.19 Rs. 15/-

4. Add: for increased T.P. Property damage limits

under Section II-I-Rs...................

as per ENDT.70 Rs. 75/-

5. 5 Workman Rs. 75/-

---------------

Total (B) Rs. 335/-

----------------

That apart, amongst the conditions contained in "Insurance "B" policy" which have been specifically referred to in the certificate of insurance namely, 17, 14, 24, 26 and 70, condition No. 17 i