Kerala High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sheena on 18 November, 2025
2025:KER:88926
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025/27TH KARTHIKA, 1947
MFA (ECC) NO.65 OF 2024
(CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2024 IN E.C.C.NO:17 OF
2020 IN THE COURT OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER,
IDUKKI, PEERUMEDU)
APPELLANT/3RD OPPOSITE PARTY:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
BO-2, 2ND FLOOR, JJ ARCADE, DESABHIMANI JN,
NH ROAD, KALLOOR, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM - 682017
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE,
SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682011
BY ADV. SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS & 1ST & 2ND OPPOSITE PARTIES:
1 SHEENA
W/O.LATE ANANDRAJ. S, CARADY GOODY ESTATE,
KARADIKUZHI KARA, KARADIKUZHY P.O, PEERMADE
VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK, PIN - 685531
2 ANJU ANAND
D/O.LATE ANANDRAJ.S, CARADY GOODY ESTATE,
KARADIKUZHI KARA, KARADIKUZHY P.O, PEERMADE
VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK, PIN - 685531
3 JEEVANAND. A
S/O.LATE ANANDRAJ. S, CARADY GOODY ESTATE,
KARADIKUZHI KARA, KARADIKUZHY P.O, PEERMADE
VILLAGE, PIN - 685531
4 MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S HIGHLAND PRODUCE CO. LTD
2025:KER:88926
M.F.A.(ECC) No.65 of 2024 2
CARADY GOODY ESTATE, KARADIKUZHI P.O, PEERMADE
VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, (REP.
BY SRI. MOHAN.N. OOMMAN, ADVOCATE PEERMAD), PIN
- 685531
5 MANAGER, CARADY GOODY ESTATE
KARADIKUZHI P.O, PEERMADE VILLAGE, PEERMADE
TALUK, LDUKKI DISTRICT (REP. BY SRI. MOHAN.N.
OOMMAN, ADVOCATE PEERMADE), PIN - 685531
BY ADVS.
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SHRI.RAJA KANNAN
ADV. CHETHAN KRISHNA R
THIS MFA (ECC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:88926
M.F.A.(ECC) No.65 of 2024 3
JUDGMENT
3rd opposite party in E.C.C.No.17 of 2020 of the Employees Compensation Commissioner, Idukki, Peerumedu has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 04.01.2024 by which the Commissioner granted compensation for the death of a workman. Respondents 1 to 3 are respectively the wife, daughter and son of the deceased workman.
2. The deceased workman was a general worker in the Karadikuzhi division of Karadikkuzhi Estate owned by respondents 4 and 5. On 25.05.2020 he was deputed for spraying pesticides. At about 12 noon, he felt severe chest pain and collapsed. He was taken to the Estate Hospital and thereafter to the Taluk head quarters hospital, Peerumedu. However, he passed away. Respondents 1 to 3 filed application before the Commissioner contending that the deceased was compelled by the estate authorities to do heavy work due to the shortage of workers. The incident occurred during the period when COVID-19 pandemic was prevailing. Respondents 1 to 3 claimed a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,80,000/-
2025:KER:88926 M.F.A.(ECC) No.65 of 2024 4
3. The insurer as well as the employer filed written statements. The employer denied that any extra work was entrusted with the deceased. The appellant contended in its written statement that death due to cardiac arrest was not covered by the policy and the insurer was not liable to indemnify the employer. The learned Tribunal on conclusion of trial held that the deceased was employed with respondents 4 and 5 and he sustained injuries and subsequently died during the course of his employment. Employer - employee relationship was established. The deceased died in an accident arisen during the course of his employment with respondents 4 and 5. The Commissioner found that the respondents 1 to 3 were entitled to get an amount of Rs.10,03,976/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment/realisation. Further the Commissioner granted Rs.2,160/- towards cost and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner, this appeal is filed. Following questions of law have been raised in the memorandum of appeal:
2025:KER:88926 M.F.A.(ECC) No.65 of 2024 5
(i) In the absence of a statutory policy under the employees compensation Act and when the miscellaneous policy specifically excludes the liability to pay interest on the compensation awarded, can the Commissioner make the appellant/insurer liable to pay interest liability?
(ii) Whether a pre-existing disease can be considered as an accident in the light of the policy issued by this insurer/appellant.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that two substantial questions of law have been raised in this appeal, and the first is with respect to the liability of the insurer to pay the interest on the compensation. He submitted that there is a specific exclusion in the policy regarding the liability to pay interest and in view of the said exclusion whether the company is liable to pay interest is a substantial question of law. The next substantial question of law raised in the memorandum of appeal is as to whether a pre-existing disease can be considered as an accident in the light of the 2025:KER:88926 M.F.A.(ECC) No.65 of 2024 6 policy issued by the insurer. The learned counsel submitted that death due to heart attack is not within the scope of the coverage offered under the policy issued by the appellant. He referred to the clauses of the policy document and contended that the company is not liable to indemnify the employer for death due to heart attack of the workman. The learned counsel referred to the contentions raised in their written statement and pointed out that the fact that the policy would not cover death due to heart attack was specifically averred in the written statement filed by the appellant. He also submitted that it is a settled preposition that if there is an exclusion clause regarding the liability to pay interest, the said liability cannot be fastened on the insurer. He therefore submitted that the impugned award is liable to be set aside.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 contended that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. She argued that in view of Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, unless substantial questions of law are involved, the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be exercised. She submitted that the issue as to 2025:KER:88926 M.F.A.(ECC) No.65 of 2024 7 whether the appellant company is liable to pay the interest or in other words, to indemnify the employer against the liability to pay interest is not a substantial question of law. She further submitted that whether a pre-existing decease can be considered as an accident is also not a substantial question of law as the said question is raised in the light of the policy issued by the insurer and the same would therefore lead only to a question of fact. The learned counsel relied on the following judgments in support of her contentions.
i) Alok Kumar Ghosh v. New India Assurance
Company Ltd. and another [(2025) SCC
OnLine SC 2249]
ii) North East Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation v. Sujatha [(2019) 11 SCC 514]
iii) Assistant Divisional Officer, Kerala Fire and Rescue Services and Others v.
Vijayalakshmi and Others [2020 (6) KLT 90]
8. She contented that the practice of insurance companies unnecessarily filing appeals by raising technical pleas was deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment in Alok Kumar Ghosh. She also pointed out that in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation's 2025:KER:88926 M.F.A.(ECC) No.65 of 2024 8 Case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, the High Court cannot entertain the appeal. Moreover, it is not within the powers of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act to examine the matter on facts and render findings. She relied on the judgment in Assistant Divisional Officer's case to contend that an abrupt heart attack suffered during the course of employment without any history of heart disease will definitely be considered as an accident arising out of and during the course of employment. She therefore submitted that no interference is warranted in the instant case and the appeal is only to be dismissed.
9. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the first question of law raised in the appeal memorandum, regarding the liability to indemnify the insured with respect to payment of interest cannot be considered as a substantial question of law in the case at hand. He pointed out that the said contention was not specifically raised by the appellant before the Commissioner and no specific averment is available regarding the said aspect in the written statement 2025:KER:88926 M.F.A.(ECC) No.65 of 2024 9 filed by the appellant. With respect to the issue as to whether the death due to heart attack can be considered as an accident during the course of employment, he submitted that the Commissioner has entered into a finding on the basis of facts and the said conclusion is not liable to be interfered with. The learned counsel also pointed out that in M.F.A (ECC) No.136 of 2018, this Court had considered a case wherein the driver of a car died due to heart attack while driving the car. The death was held as an accident that arose during the course of his employment. He also pointed out that in similar factual situations, various judgments were rendered by different High Courts accepting the contention that death due to heart attack during the course of employment shall considered as an accident in the context of Employee's Compensation Act.
10. I have appreciated the contentions raised by the respective counsel. I have also perused the impugned order. It is trite law that an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act can be entertained only if substantial questions of law are involved. As noted above, two questions 2025:KER:88926 M.F.A.(ECC) No.65 of 2024 10 have been raised in this case as substantial questions of law. The first one is regarding the liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured with respect to the payment of interest. I find considerable force in the contentions of the learned counsel that the said issue will amount to a substantial question of law. The issue as to whether the insurer can be compelled to bear the liability to pay the interest despite the exclusion clause in the policy would amount to a substantial question of law. In the policy document marked as Exhibit R1 before the Commissioner, there is a specific exclusion clause with respect to the liability to pay interest. However, the said aspect was not addressed by the Commissioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunnel Engineers and Contractors Private Limited v. New India Assurance Company Limited & Another [(2023) 15 SCC 776], considered a similar contention. The Hon'ble Court held that when the insurance policy do not provide for indemnifying the employer to the extent of the sum payable towards the interest component, on the compensation sum, the liability to pay interest would fall upon 2025:KER:88926 M.F.A.(ECC) No.65 of 2024 11 the employer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case directed the employer to satisfy the balance sum payable towards the interest component. Therefore I find that there is merit in the contention of the appellant that it is not liable to indemnify the employer towards payment of the interest in the award.
11. Next issue raised as a substantial question of law is as to whether a pre-existing decease can be considered as an accident in the light of the policy issued by the insurer/appellant. It is to be noted that there was no contention for any of the opposite parties before the Commissioner that the workman was suffering from any heart ailments earlier. This aspect has been specifically noticed by the Commissioner in the impugned order. As the appellant had no case in its written statement filed before the Commissioner that the deceased workman had a pre-existing decease, it cannot be permitted to raise the said issue as a substantial question of law in this appeal.
12. It is also to be noted that in the judgment in M.F.A. (ECC) No.136 of 2018, in similar circumstances wherein a 2025:KER:88926 M.F.A.(ECC) No.65 of 2024 12 driver died due to heart attack, while engaged in driving, this Court accepted the contention that the that death due to heart attack during the course of employment can be considered as an accident for the purpose of granting compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act. The learned Single Judge noticed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Param Pal Singh v. National Insurance Co.Ltd and another [2013 ACJ 526]. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parampal Singh's case, and of this Court in M.F.A (ECC) No.136 of 2018, the finding of the Commissioner that the death of the deceased workman during the course of his employment due to heart attack can be considered as an injury sustained during the course of employment is affirmed.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, I partly allow this appeal by holding that the appellant is not liable to indemnify respondents 4 and 5 against the liability to pay interest as directed in the impugned order and the liability to pay interest is on the respondents 4 and 5.
2025:KER:88926 M.F.A.(ECC) No.65 of 2024 13
14. The appellant had deposited the entire amount before the Commissioner as stipulated under the Act for filing this appeal. From the said amount, an amount of Rs.10,03,976/- being the compensation as also as Rs.2160/- being the cost and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses shall be released to the respondents 1 to 3 within six weeks. Interest accrued on the deposit shall also be released to them. Remaining amount shall be released to the appellant. The respondents 4 and 5 shall deposit the interest before the Commissioner within six weeks and the said amount shall also be released to the respondents 1 to 3 without delay.
Appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
S.MANU JUDGE PV