The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company is primarily liable to pay compensation to the workmen under the Workmen Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, against the order dated 15.04.2016 made in W.C.No.48 of 2014 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-I (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I) Chennai.)

The award dated 15.04.2016, passed in W.C.No.48 of 2014 is under challenge in the present civil miscellaneous appeal.

2. The substantial question of law raised is that whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is right in dividing the liability both on the Insurance Company as well as on the employer. In other words, a part of the liability is fixed on the employer. Thus, the appellants have chosen to file the present appeal. Secondly, the learned Commissioner committed an error in not granting interest at the rate of 12% with reference to Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

3. The facts in nutshell to be considered are that the appellants filed an application under the Workmen Compensation Act seeking compensation on the ground that on 12.01.2014, while the deceased was working in a building site as labourer, he fell down from the fourth floor and sustained multiple and grievous head injuries. He was taken to Government Hospital, Chengalpattu through a car and the doctors in the Government Hospital examined him and declared “brought dead”. Postmortem was also conducted on 14.01.2014. The legal heirs of the deceased Krishnan filed an application seeking compensation. The claim petition was contested by the United India Insurance Company/ the second respondent.

4. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour adjudicated the issues and arrived a conclusion that the second respondent Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation strictly with reference to the terms and conditions agreed in the policy. According to the policy, a sum of Rs.9000/- is fixed as salary for 20 labourers, annually. Thus, the employer/first respondent paid the premium. The monthly salary fixed per labour is Rs.37.50/- per month. Thus, the total salary payable to 20 employees annually was calculated as Rs.9000/- and for the said sum of Rs.9000/-, the premium was paid by the employer to the Insurance Company. Taking note of the quantum agreed by the Insurance Company, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour fixed the liability and accordingly awarded compensation. The balance amount of compensation is directed to be paid by the employer/first respondent.

5. The appellants filed the present appeal on the ground that they will not be in a position to recover the compensation from the employer as they are in a disadvantageous position. As the victims, they are not in a position to fight against the employer and collect the portion of the award amount as awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. It is further contended that the liability is to be fixed on the Insurance Company in the entirety as the policy is the workmen compensation policy and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire compensation and if at all any dispute between the employer and the Insurance Company exist, the same is to be resolved between them and if necessary, the Insurance Company may recover the amount from the employer. Contrarily, the benefits conferred under the welfare legislation cannot be taken away by shifting the responsibility to the employer and in the event of fixing the liability on the employer, the appellants are not in a position to recover the award amount.

6. With reference to the question of law mainly raised, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the policy itself is named as workmen's compensation (general policy) and there is no dispute that the coverage was in force during the relevant point of time when the accident occurred. The factum regarding the accident was also established. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour awarded compensation. However, fixing the liability on the employer side is improper on the part of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, in view