BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 29/07/2024 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN CMA(MD)No.522 of 2024 and CMP(MD)No.6880 of 2024 M/s.The United India Insurance Company Ltd., No.4A, Lawsons Road, Cantonment, Trichy. : Appellant/2^nd Respondent Vs.

1.Mrs.Jaya

2.Mr.Veerakali : Respondents 1 and 2/

Petitioners

3.Mr.Chinnasamy : 3^rd Respondent/

1st Respondent PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, to call for the records of the order, dated 27/06/2023 passed in EC No.115 of 2021 on the file of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Joint Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirapalli and set aside the same. For Appellants : Mr.I.Sudhakaran For R1 and R2 : Mr.D.Boopal

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order, dated 27/06/2023 passe in EC No.115 of 2021 by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Joint Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirapalli.

2.The facts in brief:-

The deceased Deepak was working as fisherman in the fishing boat belongs to one Chinnusamy, who is the third respondent herein in IND-TN-06-MO-6116. On 16/06/2021, they went into the sea for fishing at about 05.00 am, some 500 metre away from the seashore area. Because of the bad whether condition, the deceased fell into the sea and died.

3.A case in Crime No.10 of 2021 was registered by the Nagapattinam MPS Police. He was aged about about 19 years at the time of the occurrence and earning Rs.21,000/- per month. The boat was insured with the second respondent in the main petition, who is the appellant herein. Claiming compensation amount of Rs.20,00,000/-, the claim petition was filed before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Joint Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirappalli.

4.That was resisted by the appellant herein stating that only the boat was insured and the fishermen, who are the employees were not. So the Insurance Company namely the appellant herein is not responsible to compensate the claimants.

5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, 2 witnesses were examined and 7 documents were marked. On the side of the 2^nd respondent in the main petition one witness was examined and 2 documents were marked.

6.At the conclusion of enquiry process, the Joint Commissioner recorded a finding that it is the statutory duty on the part of the appellant herein to collect premium amount for the employees also; They have failed to collect the premium for the fishermen; They are liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the boat namely Chinnasamy. Regarding the compensation, the Joint Commissioner, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a compensation of Rs.16,89,150/- along with 12% interest.

7.Against which, this appeal is preferred by the Appellant Insurance Company.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Only a short argument was advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. He would submit that policies were issued only for machineries and not the employees. So, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened to pay and later recover the same from the insured. He is referring to the policy document. Ex.P4 is the policy document, wherein we find that the premium amount was paid for 140 machineries.

10.Reading of the policy document shows that there was a Memorandum of Understanding, dated 01/08/2020 between the Insurance Company and the Nagai District Fishermen Sangam, Nagapattinam. About 140 boats were insured by virtue of the above said Memorandum of Understanding. It is clearly mentioned that it is handmade Machinery Insurance Coverage. The employees were not covered. The duties cast upon the owners of the fishing boats to pay the policy for the employees also. In the absence any such coverage, then the owner is responsible to pay the compensation to the dependents. Since, it is a special policy issued on specific understanding, the coverage is only limited as prescribed in the policy condition. It cannot be extended beyond that. So, the order