Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 3358
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Sreeji Chambers - Appellant
Versus
Janaki – Respondent
C.M.A.No. 1153 of 2020 & C.M.P.No. 7266 of 2020
Decided on : 25.02.2021
Advocate Appeared
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr.P.Valliappan
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the policy coverage, the relevance of the FIR, and the establishment of the employer-employee relationship in determining liability for workman's compensation.
Headnote:
Deputy Commissioner of Labour - Workman's Compensation - Section 2(n) of the Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the interpretation of Section 2(n) of the Act and its application to the case. It also highlighted the relevance of the FIR and the policy coverage in determining the liability of the insurance company. The court's decision was influenced by the establishment of the employer-employee relationship, the circumstances of the accident, and the liability of the principal employers and the company engaged by them.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, United Insurance Company, appealed against a judgment passed in a workman's compensation case. The appellant contended that the deceased worker was not covered under the policy and that the claimants misrepresented the deceased's job role to claim compensation. The respondents argued that the deceased was a workman performing skilled work, and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour rightly awarded compensation holding the insurance company liable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimants did not mention the sub-contractor in the claim petition and considered the FIR, which implicated the sub-contractor in the accident. It also noted contradictions in the statements of the management witness and the co-worker. The court held that the liability should be shifted from the insurance company to the employers, directing them to deposit the awarded compensation for the claimants.
Issues: The issues involved the coverage under the policy, misrepresentation in the claim petition, establishment of the employer-employee relationship, and the liability of the insurance company and the employers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the policy coverage, the relevance of the FIR, and the establishment of the employer-employee relationship. It held that the liability should be shifted from the insurance company to the employers.
Final Decision: The court set aside the award as far as the insurance company was concerned and allowed the appeal. It directed the employers to deposit the awarded compensation for the claimants.
JUDGMENT :
1. The United Insurance Company Limited is the appellant and the appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 18.09.2017 passed in WC No.73 of 2017.
2. The substantial question of law raised by the appellant are as under:
“(1) Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour can award compensation to person not coming under the purview of Workman as defined under Section 2(n) of the Act and accident not occurring during the course of employment as far as appellant herein is concerned?
(2) Whether the Authority has jurisdiction to entertain the above claim as far as the appellant herein is concerned?
(3) Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was correct in holding that the appellant is liable inspite of the fact that the policy was unenforceable in respect of the said risk for the manner and place of accident?
(4) Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was correct in directing the appellant to pay the compensation contrary to the Trade category agreed between the insured and insurance company?”
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly contended that fixing the liability on the appellant/insurance company is admittedly in violation of the policy conditions. As per the policy, there is no coverage for the claimant/workman. In the present case, what is covered is for the skilled employees and it was not established that the person died was performing the skilled job in the accident spot. Relying on the said factual situation, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour erroneously proceeded on the basis that the deceased was a skilled workman. Per contra, he was one of the labourers engaged to dig a pit in the nearby site by a subcontractor, namely, one Murugesan and those facts were suppressed in the application and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour also proceeded on the footing that he was performing the skilled job as stated in the policy. Therefore, the employer and the employee in this case colluded with each other and filed an application by suppressing the facts to get the compensation from the appellant/insurance company. It is evidently clear that the said sub-contractor - Murugesan was not brought into the picture at all. He was not added as a party in the claim petition. Therefore, there are many contradictions in respect of the sub-contractor – Murugesan and the FIR speaks that the sub-contractor Murugesan is responsible for the accident. However, in the claim petition, there is no mentioning about the sub-contractor - Murugesan. Thus, the factual contradiction reveals that in order to fix the liability on the appellant/insurance company, the claimants as well as the employer together twisted the facts and filed the claim petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3/claimants opposed the contention by stating that the deceased worker was employed as workman and he was performing the skilled job. The factum regarding the accident was established and the FIR was filed and the death occurred during the course of the employment and the employer-employee relationship also established. This being the factum, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has rightly considered the facts and circumstances and awarded the compensation by fixing the liability on the appellant/insurance company. Thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
5. Considering the arguments, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the claim petition, the claimants have not spelt out anything about the sub-contractor - Murugesan. Contrarily, the claim petition was filed merely by stating that the deceased was performing the industrial work and, more specifically, the skilled work as stated in the insurance policy. Therefore, the contention of the appellant in this regard is to be considered whether the claim petition is filed stating that the deceased was doing the skilled work only for the purpose of claiming compensation from the insurance comp
