[138] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 14.01.2025 The New India Assurance Company Limited …Appellant Versus Pinki Devi and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Yashveer Kharb, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] Insurance Company is in appeal, aggrieved of order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, whereby, the claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.6,89,710/- on account of death of Amarjeet Singh.

[2] Claimants filed petition seeking compensation on account of death of Amarjeet Singh, who died of heart attack while on duty. It was claimed that Amarjeet Singh suffered heart attack on account of stress and strain of the employment. Thus, the deceased died of accident arising out of and in due course of employment. The employer is liable to pay compensation as contemplated under Section 4 of the 1923 Act.

[3] Petition was resisted by respondent No.1, who though admitted employee-employer relationship, but claimed that workman died of heart attack and thus, he is not liable to pay any compensation.

[4] Commissioner framed following issues:-

“1. Whether the accident during and out of course of employment of the respondent?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to the claimed amount as mentioned to the claim application. If so to what extent?

3. Relief. ”

[5] While answering Issue No.1, Commissioner, held that it is an admitted case that the deceased died of heart attack while on duty in the premises of respondents. This proved that the death of the deceased is on account of an accident arising out of and during the course of employment. This falls within the ambit of Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Finding that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.7000/- per month, Commissioner accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.6,89,710/-.

[6] Counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, submits that in view of the fact that the statute does not saddle the employer with liability of interest, Insurance Company is not liable to pay interest. He relies upon ‘New India Assurance Company Limited versus Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya and another’, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 814. He further submits that from the perusal of Insurance Policy, it is evident that the deceased being an unskilled worker was insured for the monthly wages of Rs.6500/- and thus, Commissioner erred in awarding compensation by treating salary of the deceased beyond Rs.6500/-.

[7] Per contra, counsel for the claimants would submit that the statute provides for payment of interest on the compensation in terms of Section 4-A. There is no exclusion of liability to pay interest in the insurance policy thus, Commissioner rightly awarded interest @ 12% per annum. He further submits that there is no sealing as provided under the policy with respect to salary of a workman. The policy (Exhibit R-1) insures not only unskilled workers but also skilled workers. It having been proved on record that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.7000/- per month, Commissioner has rightly awarded compensation.

[8] I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case.

[9] There can’t be dispute with the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘Harshabdhai Amrutbhai Modhiya’(supra) that the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured only as per contract unlike under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act where they have a statutory liability towards the third party. Thus, the fate of the argument raised by counsel for the appellant with respect to non- indemnification of the insured qua liability of the interest depends upon the terms of the insurance policy. He is not in a position to dispute that as per the insurance policy, the insurance company accepted the premium and promised to inde