Insurer liable for statutory interest under Employees’ Compensation Act despite policy exclusion, upon timely notice.

JUDGMENT :

K. KUMARESH BABU, J.

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 05.10.2020 passed in W.C.No.279 of 2019 by the Commissioner of Employee’s Compensation, Coonoor.

2. The facts leading to the present lis are that, on 03.06.2018, the claimant, one Mr. Deepak Sharma, aged about 40 years, who was employed in the 1st respondent’s factory, met with an accident in the Rolling Room while feeding the Rotorvane. During the course of such work, his right hand was caught in the feed conveyor, resulting in severe injuries and crushing of his right upper limb. The claimant was immediately admitted to the hospital on 03.06.2018 where his right hand up to the upper limb had to be amputated, and he underwent necessary medical treatment before being discharged on 19.07.2018. As a result of the accident, the claimant suffered permanent disability, losing his right hand and resulting in total loss of earning capacity. Hence, the claimant filed an application in E.C.No.279 of 2019, before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Coonoor, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/

3. The factory in which the claimant was employed was arrayed as the 1^st respondent, and the Insurance Company with which the 1^st respondent had held availed Employees’ Compensation Insurance policy (bearing Policy No.650600411710000002) was impleaded as the second respondent. The 1st respondent, in its counter statement, averred that although the accident had been duly intimated to the second respondent, no compensation was paid to the claimant. It was further contended that, in view of the valid insurance policy, the liability to pay compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 rests with the second respondent. On the other hand, the second respondent filed its counter statement contending that the claimant must establish that he was an employee of the 1^st respondent and that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. It was further alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant. The second respondent also contended that the compensation claimed was excessive and, in any event, that it is not liable to pay interest under the terms of the policy.

4. The learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, upon consideration of the pleadings of both parties, framed the following question for determination.:

1.)Whether the claimant sustained the injury on 03.06.2018 in the course of his employment? Whether there existed an employer–employee relationship between the claimant and the 1st respondent?

2.) What the quantum of compensation to which the claimant is entitled as per the Workman Compensation Act, 1923?

5. From the Claimants’ side the Claimant himself has been examined as AW1 [Other Language] ( and had marked documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 [Other Language] as evidence, whereas the 1^st respondent side had marked documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4( [Other Language] as respondent side evidence. The 2nd respondent had also marked the Ex.R1 [Other Language] as evidence.

6. The learned Joint Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, after hearing the arguments on both sides and perusing the materials available on record, proceeded to decide the aforesaid issues. Insofar as Issue No.1 is concerned, the learned Joint Commissioner, upon consideration of the evidence on record, namely Ex.A1 [Other Language], being the medical certificate issued by the doctor to the Insurance Company, whi