This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 11.01.2011 passed in W.C.No.260 of 2006 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I (Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation), Teynampet, Chennai-600006.

2. The claim was filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I for Rs.1,51,508.95/- under the Workmen Compensation Act. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I awarded a compensation of Rs.58,394/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred.

3. The claim was filed by the first respondent for the injury sustained by him during the course of his employment with the second respondent. The first respondent claimed to have been working from 1997 onwards and that he was a permanent employee, working as a Helper with a monthly pay of Rs.3,650/-. On 26.12.2005 at about 9.00A.M., the first respondent along with one Venkatesan, who was employed as an Operator were shifting granite stone weighing about 50 Kgs, and due to the weight of the granite stone, he lost his balance and the granite stone fell on his left hand and as a result, he sustained grievous injuries on the middle and ring fingers of the left hand. He was administered 16 and 17 sutures on the middle and ring fingers respectively by the Chettinad Hospital, where he was treated as an outpatient and later he received treatment from the Government Peripheral Hospital, K.K.Nagar, Chennai - 600 078. The first respondent claimed to be permanently disabled by 15% and as a result lost 17% of earning capacity.

4. The second respondent filed a counter mainly claiming that the injuries are superficial without fracture, that first respondent has not produced any documents to prove the loss in earning capacity, that the first respondent is covered by a GPA unnamed Insurance Policy with the Oriental Insurance and despite request the first respondent has not come forward to lodge the claim form and that the first respondent has calculated the loss in earning capacity at 19% while the disability was only 15% and therefore sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. The appellant, who was impleaded on 02.03.2007 contented that no notice of claim was issued to them, that the Insurance Policy being a Group Personal Accident Policy would not cover the claim under the Workmen Compensation Act and therefore questioned the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to entertain the application for compensation. The appellant also call upon the first respondent to prove the other contentions raised by him regarding injury, employment and salary.

6. After considering the oral as well as the documentary evidence furnished, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, partly allowed the claim with a direction to pay Rs.58,394/- within 30 days and upon failure to pay 12% interest from the date of claim till actual payment. Aggrieved with, the present appeal has been filed by the Appellant.

7. Heard the learned counsels for the appellant and the respondents and perused the records.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant painstakingly argued that the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy would not cover the injury suffered by the first respondent and that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded the compensation against the appellant. The learned counsel also contended that unless the Insurance policy specifically empowers a claim under Workmen Compensation Act, the policy cannot be invoked. The learned counsel also assailed the order of the Commissioner contending that the first respondent has not proved the existence of employer–employee relationship to sustain the claim under Section 3 of the Workmen Compensation Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgments reported in 2005 ACJ 409 [NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., vs. V.PRABHU DAS AND ANOTHER], 2010 ACJ 775 [MANAGEMENT, JOTHI CALENDERING MILLS vs. PERUMAL AND ANOTHER] and 2013 ACJ 649 [NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER vs. LAILA AND OTHERS] to show that unless the policy specifically covers any cl