An insurer is not liable for interest on compensation awarded under the Employees Compensation Act if the policy expressly excludes such liability.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal seeks to challenge a Judgment and Award dated 19.03.2018, in ECA No.20/2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned Award, the petition filed under Section 22 read with Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act , 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “E.C. Act”) has been allowed and the compensation of Rs.6,92,760/- has been awarded in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2/claimants No.1 and2.

2. None appears for the respondents No.1 and 2, despite service. The record also shows that the respondents have not been appearing regularly. The respondents accordingly, are proceeded with ex-parte.

3. The brief facts are that the respondents No. 1 and 2 are the wife and the son respectively of one deceased Dharman. The deceased was employed with the respondent no.3 as a lorry driver to deliver the Three HGV Trailer Jeeps from Chennai to Faridabad. On 03.08.2016, the deceased was driving lorry bearing registration number TN-18-TC-0818 and when they reached near Anand Honda Show Room, NH-7, Attibele, they stopped on the Bangalore-Hosur road for having tea. At that time, the deceased discovered that there was a jam in the clutch of the vehicle and in order to clear the blockage, the deceased went under the vehicle. Unfortunately, the vehicle moved suddenly and ran over the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased was seriously injured and succumbed to his injuries at the hospital.

4. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month and was contributing to the income of the family and after the accident, the respondents/claimants have been facing severe financial difficulties. Hence a claim petition was filed.

5. The matter was contested by the respondent/owner as well as the Appellant/Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal and several defences were raised. However, there was no dispute that the deceased was employed by the respondent no.3/owner.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the Petitioners prove that deceased Dharman was a Driver/employee under the Respondent No.2.?

2. Whether the Petitioners prove that, Sri. Dharman was in the course of and arising out employment under the Respondent No.2?

3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation?

If so, what is the quantum and from whom?

4. What Order or Award?”

7. The Learned Tribunal after examining the evidence of the parties awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.6,92,760/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident i.e., from 03.08.2016 till its realisation. The learned Tribunal also held that the respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that he is not challenging the quantum of the compensation awarded and his challenge is only on one aspect. He submits that the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be made jointly liable to pay the interest awarded by the learned Trial Court in terms of the contract between the appellant and respondent No.3/employer in terms of which, this amount is to be paid by the employer/respondent No.3. In this behalf, reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company on the following judgment of the Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court:

i) The New India Assurance Co.,Ltd., v. Harshadbhai Amruth Bhai Modhiya and another1 (2006) 5 SCC 192

ii) The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd, v. Raju and Others.2 1992 SCC OnLine Kar 294

9. The substantial question of law that arises in the present c