Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
No sources state insurer's liability is discharged after paying premium to employee (premiums flow employer → insurer, not insurer → employee). Instead, uniformly hold employer's liability persists post-insurer payment; insurance aids but does not absolve employer (S.4(2), 4A, 4(5)). Query unfulfilled; opposite principle affirmed across cases (e.g., Kerala HC Full Bench in Chandrasekharan Nair). ["Manager Life Insurance Corporation Of India Limited vs James Mathew - Kerala"] ["THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs SRI. A.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN - Kerala"] ["N ANILKUMAR vs THE BRANCH MANAGER Advocate -SMT SREEKALA KRISHNADAS - Kerala"]
In the realm of employee benefits, gratuity stands as a crucial statutory right under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Employers often opt for group gratuity insurance schemes, typically with insurers like the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), to fund these payouts. But a common query arises: I want cases that state the liability of an insurer is discharged after payment of insurance premium to the employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This question touches on the boundaries between employer obligations and insurer responsibilities.
While no cases explicitly confirm an insurer's liability is fully discharged merely by paying premiums directly to the employee, judicial precedents clearly limit the insurer's role to the policy's maturity value, tied strictly to premiums paid by the employer. This post delves into the legal nuances, drawing from key rulings and principles to clarify these distinctions for employers, employees, and HR professionals.
Courts have consistently held that compulsory group gratuity insurance under Section 4A of the Payment of Gratuity Act does not shift the employer's statutory liability to the insurer. Instead, the insurer's obligation is confined to the maturity value or sum assured under the master policy, which depends entirely on premiums contributed by the employer. Jayarajan V. T. VS Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank Represented by General Manager - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 318
Upon payout of this amount—typically to the employer for disbursement to the employee—the insurer fulfills its contractual duty. Any shortfall must be covered by the employer, and excesses under better scheme terms (per Section 4(5)) cannot be enforced against the insurer without corresponding premiums. C. K. Kuttykrishnan Nair VS Joint Registrar (General) Co-Operative Societies, Kottayam - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 694
Key excerpt: The liability to pay gratuity does not get shifted to the insurer by the compulsory insurance and the effect is only that the maturity value of the master policy would go to the credit of the dues of the employee. ... The insurer cannot be made liable to pay any amount in excess of the maturity value of the master policy as the same would be dependent on the premium paid to him. Jayarajan V. T. VS Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank Represented by General Manager - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 318
Group gratuity schemes, such as LIC's Group Gratuity Cash Accumulation Plan, are fundamentally premium-linked. The insurer's liability matches the accumulated fund based on employer contributions. Employees cannot demand the policy's maximum limit if premiums haven't funded it. Mathew Korah VS Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Operative Bank represented by its General Manager, Kaduthuruthy - 2013 0 Supreme(Ker) 597
For instance: The liability of the LIC is only to the extent of the premium paid by the respondent Bank; ... the scheme in which the 1st respondent is enrolled is a Group Gratuity Cash Accumulation scheme and irrespective of the maximum amount payable, the liability of the insurer is limited to the amount available in the fund. Mathew Korah VS Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Operative Bank represented by its General Manager, Kaduthuruthy - 2013 0 Supreme(Ker) 597
Even if a master policy allows up to Rs. 14,37,772, absent premiums for that coverage, courts won't direct the insurer to pay beyond funded amounts. Mathew Korah VS Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Operative Bank represented by its General Manager, Kaduthuruthy - 2013 0 Supreme(Ker) 597
Post-insurer payout, any deficit falls squarely on the employer under Section 4(2). This is reaffirmed in multiple Kerala High Court decisions: Any deficit in the amount due as gratuity to the employee after payment by the insurer has to be met by the employer only as the liability squarely rests on him under Section 4(2) of the Central Act. C. K. Kuttykrishnan Nair VS Joint Registrar (General) Co-Operative Societies, Kottayam - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 694N ANILKUMAR vs THE BRANCH MANAGER Advocate -SMT SREEKALA KRISHNADAS - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4228C.J. CHANDRIKAKUMARY vs JOINT REGISTRAR - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 24750T D MOHANAN vs THE ALWAYE URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 50926SOMAN M K vs JOINT REGISTRAR - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 47736
These rulings emphasize that Section 4(5) allows employees higher benefits from employer schemes or contracts, but this doesn't extend to insurers. Employees must pursue employers directly for shortfalls or scheme-based excesses. Jayarajan V. T. VS Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank Represented by General Manager - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 318
Better Terms under Section 4(5): If a scheme or contract offers superior gratuity, employees can claim from the employer, prevailing over inconsistent state rules. However, insurers remain capped at policy maturity. C. K. Kuttykrishnan Nair VS Joint Registrar (General) Co-Operative Societies, Kottayam - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 694N ANILKUMAR vs THE BRANCH MANAGER Advocate -SMT SREEKALA KRISHNADAS - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4228
No Retention of Excess by Employer: Post-2010 amendments to Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (2nd proviso to Rule 59), employers can't retain policy excesses; they must pass them to employees. But insurer liability ends at payout. Mathew Korah VS Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Operative Bank represented by its General Manager, Kaduthuruthy - 2013 0 Supreme(Ker) 597
Irrelevant Contexts: Cases under Motor Vehicles Act or Workmen's Compensation (e.g., Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. VS Legal Heirs Of Decd. Rameshchandra Bhailalbhai Joshi - 2024 Supreme(Guj) 1926, Ramchandra VS Regional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2013 5 Supreme 696) don't apply, as they deal with accident liabilities requiring extra premiums for employee coverage, not gratuity. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Ranny, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS K. T. Thomas S/O. Thomas - 2016 Supreme(Ker) 1314
Other sources highlight premium payment's role in insurance contracts generally. For example, under the Insurance Act, risk attaches only after premium receipt, and policies void ab-initio if cheques bounce. CHARLES AJOY ESTIBEIRO VS BANK OF INDIA This underscores that gratuity schemes hinge on employer-paid premiums, not direct employee payments.
Recommendations:- Employers: Audit schemes regularly; consider self-funding if premiums lag.- Employees: Approach Controlling Authority under Section 7 for disputes.- All: Consult policy fine print before litigation, as outcomes are fact-specific.
Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, insurers do not assume full employer liability via group schemes. Their role discharges upon paying the premium-funded maturity value, leaving employers accountable for the rest. This balance protects employees' rights while limiting insurer overreach. Jayarajan V. T. VS Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank Represented by General Manager - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 318C. K. Kuttykrishnan Nair VS Joint Registrar (General) Co-Operative Societies, Kottayam - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 694
Takeaways:- Insurer liability = Maturity value only (premium-dependent).- Employer remains primary; covers deficits, honors Section 4(5).- No direct premium payment to employees discharges insurer broadly.
This post provides general insights based on available precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases. Outcomes may vary by facts and jurisdiction.
#GratuityAct #InsurerLiability #LabourLaw
Any deficit in the amount due as Gratuity to the employee, after payment by the insurer has to be met by the employer only, as the liability squarely rests on him. ... Any amount in excess of the Gratuity due would also go to the employee since the contract of insurance would fall within the ambit of Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Act. ... For payment of #HL_ST....
Any deficit in the amount due as gratuity to the employee after payment by the insurer has to be met by the employer only as the liability squarely rests on him under S.4(2) of the Central Act. ... The liability to pay gratuity does not get shifted to the insurer by the compulsory insurance and the effect is only that the maturity value of the master policy would go to the credit of the dues of the employ....
The payment which was made by opponent No. 2 to the legal heirs of deceased employee was liability of any employer in case of death of an employee and such payment cannot be adjusted with its liabilities arising under any other act i.e. M. V. Act. ... paid extra premium for covering liability of employee travelling in the vehicle. ... premium @ Rs.25/- per employee insured notwit....
Any deficit in the amount due as gratuity to the employee after payment by the insurer has to be met by the employer only as the liability squarely rests on him under S.4(2) of the Central Act. ... The liability to pay gratuity does not get shifted to the insurer by the compulsory insurance and the effect is only that the maturity value of the master policy would go to the credit of the dues of the employ....
Any deficit in the amount due as gratuity to the employee after payment by the insurer has to be met by the employer only as the liability squarely rests on him under S.4(2) of the Central Act. ... The compulsory insurance under S.4A of the Central Act is only to facilitate the employer to discharge his liability and the premium paid is part of the wages only. ... The liability to pay gr....
Any deficit in the amount due as gratuity to the employee after payment by the insurer has to be met by the employer only as the liability squarely rests on him under S.4(2) of the Central Act. ... The liability to pay gratuity does not get shifted to the insurer by the compulsory insurance and the effect is only that the maturity value of the master policy would go to the credit of the dues of the employ....
Any deficit in the amount due as gratuity to the employee after payment by the insurer has to be met by the employer only as the liability squarely rests on him under Section 4(2) of the Central Act. ... Any deficit in the amount due as gratuity to the employee after payment by the insurer has to be met by the employer only as the liability squarely rests on him under Section 4(2) of the Central #....
Any deficit in the amount due as gratuity to the employee after payment by the insurer has to be met by the employer only as the liability squarely rests on him under Section p style="text-align ... Any deficit in the amount due as gratuity to the employee after payment by the insurer has to be met by the employer only as the liability squarely rests on him under Section 4(2) of the p style= ... The compuls....
Any deficit in the amount due as gratuity to the employee after payment by the insurer has to be met by the employer only as the liability squarely rests on him under Section 4(2) of the Central Act. ... Any deficit in the amount due as gratuity to the employee after payment by the insurer has to be met by the employer only as the liability squarely rests on him under Section 4(2) of the Central #....
Any deficit in the amount due as gratuity to the employee after payment by the insurer has to be met by the employer only as the liability squarely rests on him under Section 4(2) of the Central Act. ... Any deficit in the amount due as gratuity to the employee after payment by the insurer has to be met by the employer only as the liability squarely rests on him under Section 4(2) of the Central #....
6. Being aggrieved, the Corporation has preferred this appeal, which has been admitted vide order dated 01.09.2008 on following substantial question of law:- "Whether payment of premium to the agent of the insurer after the death of insured, constitutes legal liability against the insurer to pay the sum assured under the policy?"
Payment for one or more pre-paid payment instruments, as defined in the policy guidelines for issuance and operation of pre-paid payment instruments issued by Reserve Bank of India under section 18 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (51 of 2007), to a banking company or a co-operative bank to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), applies (including any bank or banking institution referred to in section 51 of that Act) or to any other company or institution. • Payment as life insurance premium to an insurer as defined in clause (9) of section 2 of the Ins....
Mr Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the employee has argued that the Appellate Authority has taken into account section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the liability cast upon the employer to make payment of gratuity to an employee, even if an employee does not claim such payment within time.
In all cases of risks covered by the policies issued by an insurer, the attachment of risk to an insurer will be in consonance with the terms of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 and except in the cases where the premium has been paid in cash, in all other cases, insurer shall be on risk only after the receipt of the premium by the insurer. Provided that in the case of a policy of general insurance, where the remittance made by the proposer or the policy holder is not realised by the insurer, the policy shall be treated as void ab-initio. Provided further that in the ....
An owner of the vehicle carrying passengers must pay premium for covering passengers risk in a passenger vehicle. Therefore the scheme of the Act does not ensure any statutory liability on the insurer to pay compensation for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle. Any liability other than the liability provided under the Act is to be extended under the insurance policy only on payment of additional premium. Therefore, any passenger other than a person mentioned under S.147 (1) (b) does not cover by such policy.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
