O R D E R

The award dated 15.04.2016 passed in W.C.No.49 of 2014 is under challenge in the present civil miscellaneous appeal.

2. The substantial questions of law raised by the appellant reads as under:

1) Whether the learned Commissioner was justified in saddling liability of the 2nd respondent at Rs.10,612/- only when there was a valid policy of insurance covering the deceased employee?

2) whether the award of learned Commissioner determining the liability of the second respondent at Rs.10,612/- without any evidence brought on record by the 2nd respondent is sustainable?

3)Has not the learned Commissioner committed error in not granting interest of 12% on award amount in terms of Sec.4-

A(3)(a) of Employees Compensation Act-1923?

3. The claimants are the appellants and the application was filed seeking compensation on the ground that on 05.12.2013, when the deceased/Tharany @ Tarisen was working as Carpenter at Lancar Kairambedu, Nellikuppam Road, Guduvancherry, Kancheepuram District, during the course of employment, he fell down from the third floor and sustained multiple and grievous head injuries. He was taken to the S.R.M.Hospital, Kattankulathur and admitted and treated as in-patient from 05.12.2013 till 11.12.2013. Thereafter, he died on 11.12.2013 at about 12.30 hours. The legal heirs of the deceased 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 eight labourers, annually. Thus, the employer/first respondent paid the premium. The monthly salary fixed per labour is Rs.93.75/- per month. Thus, the total salary payable to eight 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 of the fact that the Insurance Company had undertaken to indemnify the compensation on behalf of the em