Jammu & Kashmir High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Deputy Labour Commissioner And Ors. on 27 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: I(2002)ACC282, 2002ACJ282
JUDGMENT Syed Bashir-Ud-Din, J.
1. Petitioner company engaged in general insurance business has extended Group Personal Accident Policy cover (group insurance) in respect of twenty unnamed labourers of Sodhi Agro Industries Ltd., Kadalbal Pampore (Kmr) of District Pulwama, respondent No. 3, to cover the personal accident risks to each labour for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. During the subsistence of this insurance cover, two labourers Tilak Bahadur and Om Bahadur of the employer respondent No. 3 died by accident of drowning in river Jhelum during the course of their appointment. One Ram Bahadur, representative of All India Nepalese Society, respondent No. 2 filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner appointed under Section 20 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Besides the employer the writ petitioner insurance company was also impleaded as a party. The Commissioner passed an award on 17.1.2001 requiring petitioner company to deposit Rs. 2,00,000 (Rs. 1,00,000 for each of the deceased labourer) and against the employer respondent No. 2, further an award of Rs. 50,000 (i.e., Rs. 25,000 for each of the deceased labourer) too was passed. This award is impugned in this writ petition mainly on the ground that the award has been passed without any jurisdiction as the application moved before the Commissioner is not filed by any of the dependants of the deceased labourers and secondly that the insurance company was not liable under the Personal Accident Insurance Policy Scheme to compensate the dependants of the deceased labourers. The procedure prescribed under the policy for claiming the insurance dues from the company itself has not been followed.
2. An application is moved before the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act and Rules framed thereunder, for compensation in respect of death of two workmen by accident arising out of and during the course of their employment against their employer respondent No. 2 and the insurance company for indemnification by the insurer. Their liability arises the moment the death as above has occasioned. The question raised is, if the award in the proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act can be given by the Commissioner. No agreement in the form of Group Personal Accident Policy is pointed out to the court to show that the settlement of the question cannot be made by the Commissioner under the Act. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Rules framed thereunder, there is no bar to a representative of the deceased or the dependant from moving the Commissioner for determining/assessing the actual amount of compensation to be deposited in respect of the deceased workmen, before the Commissioner, for apportionment among the dependants of deceased workmen. The impugned award only determines compensation and directs its deposit in terms and on conditions of the provisions of the Act. The impugned judgment nowhere states that the amounts so deposited are to be taken away by the applicant or some unauthorised person. Rather the award states that the amount is to be given to the dependants of the deceased workmen. Such a course for deposit of compensation on determination, to be followed by subsequent apportionment/distribution of compensation amongst the dependants of the deceased workmen is fully covered by the provisions of the Act.
3. Notice is also taken of the fact that the petitioner insurance company is a party to the application/proceedings before the Commissioner under the Act. No objection as to jurisdiction has been taken before the Commissioner. The petitioner has been set ex parte and evidence was recorded by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has held the insurance company indernnifier liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased workmen to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000 and the employer to the extent of Rs. 50,000 (to be shared equally by the dependants of the deceased workmen). Against this award, despite the appeal being provided under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the aggrieved party has not opted to file an appeal. Despite such alternative remedy petitioner insurance company has not taken recourse to the remedy of appeal. To mention that the petitioner company did not choose to file appeal on the assumption that the award is just an ipse dixit of the Commissioner appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, would barely suffice, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to hold the writ maintainable, without resort to alternative efficacious remedy of appeal.
4. In result, writ petition is dismissed in limine.