Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P.ROUTRAY, J.
Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
F@ P. Jyoti Reddy and Others – Respondents
FAO No. 22 of 2019
Decided On : 20-06-2022
For the Appellant : P.K. Mahali
For the Respondent: B. Mohanty
Insurers are liable for compensation reflecting actual wages paid to employees, even if exceeding insured amounts, provided no minimum wage law violations occur.
Headnote:(A) Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 4-A - Insurer's liability in compensation claims - Appeal against determination of compensation of Rs.5,52,510/- for accidental death of employee at project site - Employment and wage not disputed; Insurer's challenge to liability on wage excess found insubstantial - Interest awarded from date of accident upheld as per precedent. (Paras 1-7)
(B) Employment - Unskilled labor - Monthly income determination - Admission of employer on actual wage supports claimants - Insurer not to limit liability to policy wage if actual wage does not violate minimum wage standards. (Paras 5-6)
(C) Interest on compensation - Settled law that interest is payable from date of accident - Reference to case precedents confirming this principle. (Paras 6)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimants of deceased laborer granted compensation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. insurance liability concerning compensation amount and coverage. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. employment connection acknowledged despite dispute. (Para 4) |
| 4. interest on compensation payable from accident date. (Para 6) |
| 5. appeal dismissed; no reason to overturn award. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT :
B.P. ROUTRAY, J.
1. The present appeal by the Insurer-Appellant is directed against the judgment dated 30th July, 2018 of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in E.C. Case No.510-D/2011 wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.5,52,510/- has been granted to the claimants on account of death of the deceased in course of and arising out of his employment as a labourer under Respondent No.6.
2. The claimants are the wife, old parents and children of the deceased. The deceased died on 23rd October, 2011 at the project site of ARSS Infrastructure Project Ltd. at Bhubaneswar due to accidental electrocution. The deceased was 40 years old and the compensation has been calculated taking his monthly income at Rs.6,000/-.
3. The Appellant challenges the award mainly on the grounds that, when the deceased died at Bhubaneswar Project Office, the insurance coverage was taken for the project work of Cuttack-Paradeep Road and as such the same is not covered within the insurance package. Secondly, as per the policy, the insurance was taken for the rate of wage at Rs.2281.25 per month for the workman and therefore, the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month is beyond the coverage amount and for that excessive amount, the Insurer-Appellant cannot be held liable which should be paid by the employer.
4. Before delving further, it needs to be mentioned at the outset that the employment of the deceased under Respondent No.6, the ARSS Infrastructure Project Ltd. as a labourer is not disputed. As per the averments of the claimants and Respondent No.6, the deceased at that relevant time had been to Bhubaneswar site office in connection with some ancillary work to the Project concerned i.e., for Cuttack-Paradeep road. So in other words, neither the claimants nor the owner/employer dispute the employment of the deceased for the project work of Cuttack-Paradeep Road and his death at Bhubaneswar Project Office. What is contended by the Insurer that the deceased was not an employee in respect of the insured project work of Cuttack-Paradeep Road is not found substantiated with material facts. Neither the insurer did adduce any evidence nor the employer too, to rebut the contention of the claimants. The insurer taking advantage of the death of the deceased at Bhubaneswar Project Office is developing his case as such without any supporting materials. So, in absence of any material in support of the Appellant’s contention regarding death of the deceased unconnected to Cuttack-Paradeep Road Project work cannot be acceded for the mere reason that the death happened at Bhubaneswar Project Office.
5. Next coming to the contention with regard to the income of the deceased and the insurance coverage, admittedly the wage amount covered within the policy is Rs.2281.25 and it is the further admitted case of the employer and the claimants that the deceased was getting Rs.6000/- per month. The status of the deceased as an unskilled labourer also remains undisputed. The rate of minimum wages prescribed during October, 2011 for unskilled labourer was Rs.90/- per day and therefore, the monthly rate of wage mentioned in the insurance policy is found matching to the said amount. But it is the admission of the employer that the deceased was getting Rs.6,000/- per month. Thus, keeping in view of such admission of the employer (Respondent No.6), no illegality is seen in fixing the monthly rate of wage of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- by the learned Commissioner. But the question is, whether the Insurance Company would be held liable for such compensation amount calculated upon the enh
