Madras High Court
The National Insurance Company Limited vs Manickaraj :First on 21 April, 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON :24.03.2022
PRONOUNCED ON :21.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.A(MD)No.603 of 2020
and
C.M.P(MD)No.6238 of 2020
The National Insurance Company Limited,
First Floor, No.7/1,
West Car Street,
Sivakasi. :Appellant/Second Respondent
.vs.
1.Manickaraj :First Respondent/Petitioner
2.The Management,
Vaigai Agro Products,
315, Adaikalapattinam,
Alangulam Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. :Second Respondent/First Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the
Workmen Compensation Act against the order of the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, dated 11.09.2018 made in
W.C.No.76 of 2009, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour, Tirunelveli.
For Appellant :Mr.A.Ilango
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For Respondent-1 :Mr.R.Krishnan
For Respondent-2 :Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam
JUDGMENT
********* This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, dated 11.09.2018 made in W.C.No.76 of 2009, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli.
2.The Insurance Company is the appellant herein challenging the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Tribunal, on the ground of liability.
3.The first respondent herein filed a claim petition before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Tirunelveli seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident.
4.The appellant/Insurance Company has filed a counter affidavit stating that the policy-Ex.R2 is a Special Contingency Insurance Policy issued under the Workmen Compensation Insurance Policy and the liability is restricted to Rs.40,991/- and the same is issued to the employer under Ex.P7 and therefore, the 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount. However, the Commissioner has passed an award or R$.1,38,298/- to be paid jointly and severally by the employer and the Insurance Compayny and hence the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents and perused the materials placed before this court.
6.Perused Ex.R2-Policy. It is a Special Contingency Insurance Policy covering a group of employees belonging to the second respondent herein.The conditions of the policy were marked as Ex.R5. Admittedly, after perusing the said Ex.R2 and ExR5, I find that it is only Group Insurance Policy and not an workmen Compensation Insurance Policy. The caption has also clearly mentioned as Special Contingency Insurance Policy.Thus, I find that the appellant herein has entered into a contract with the second respondent herein by issuing a 'Speial Contingency Policy'' covering the personal accident benefits and the medical expenses arising out of the accident in the schedule attached thereto. The appellant herein has not issued any Workmen Compensation Insurance Policy covering the statutory liability under the Workmen Compensation 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Act, 1923 for the first respondent for the death or bodily injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The second respondent has taken a Special Contingency Insurance Policy as referred to supra and has raised a claim under the said policy with appellant herein by submitting the required documents such as bills, receipts and the claim form for the medical expenses incurred for the accidental injuries to the first respondent herein which was settled by the appellant herein to the second respondent complying with the conditions of the Special Contingency Insurance Policy. Accordingly, in view of the nature of the policy taken by the second respondent herein, being a Special Contingency Insurance Policy, it does not cover any statutory liability arising under the workmen Compensation Act, 1923.
7.This Court vide its order made in C.M.A(MD)No.482 of 2018, dated 19.12.2018 in K.G.Spinning Mills .vs. Senthil Kumar and the New India Assurance Company Limited, has upheld the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai in W.C.No.140 of 2009 involving a case, wherein, the owner of the textile mill has taken a group personal accident policy covering the personal accident and medical expenses benefits for their 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis employees not covered by the Workmen's Compensation Insurance Policy holding the owner of the textile mill liable and exonerating the respondent Insurance Company.
8.In another decision in the case of the New India Assurance Company Limited, Erode-11 .vs. Madhammal and four others reported in 2020(1) TN MAC 64, similar point has been considered by this Court, wherein, it has been held that:
''11.The Insurance Policy is clear.It being the contract of indemnity, the appellant cannot be fastened with the liability than what has been expressly agreed between the Appellant and the insured person namely, the fourth respondent. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has to be modified. Further, in National Insurance Company Limited .vs. V.Prabhu Das and another, 2005(2) TN MAC 428(DB):
2005 ACJ 409, it was held as follows:
''From the evidence available on record,Wer are able to see that the said Policy does not cover any claim under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. According to the said Policy, the amount has already been paid to the Owner of the vehicle. The learned 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Deputy Commissioner of Labour has not even admitted the Defence taken by them in the Counter and also the evidence adduced on its side. Hence, the liability fixed on the Insurance Company by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour alone is set aside and the Claimant can recover the amount from the Respondent No.
2.''
9.In another decision in the case of the Management, ISRO, Mahendragiri, Tirunelveli District .vs. V.Arasi and three others reported in 2017(2) TN MAC 414, wherein, it has been held as under:
''WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923(8 OF 1923) – LIABILITY OF INSURER – Extent – Workman employed by Contractor – Policy of insurance not one taken for compensation under WC Act but under Worker's Welfare Insurance for 30 unnamed Workers with maximum liability of Rs.1,00,000/- fore each worker – Liability of Insurer, therefore, limited to Rs.
1,00,000/- -Insurer not liable to pay compensation as awarded by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner.'' 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.In view of the terms of the policy as extracted supra, as could be seen from Ex.R2 and Ex.R7-Policy, the payment of the amount made by the Insurance Company under Ex.R6, Receipt of the said amount by the employer under Ex.R7 and the deposit of the amount by the Insurance Company to the credit of the employer under Ex.R8, In find that the Insurance Company has paid its limited liability as per the terms of the Insurance Policy and since the nature of the policy not covered under the Workmen Compensation Act, the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be mulcted with the liability, in view of the above referred decisions and accordingly, the Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant/employer.
11.Accordingly, the appellant/Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant/employer. Since already a sum of Rs.40,991/- has already been remitted, the balance of the award amount is directed to be paid by the employer namely, Vaigai Agro Products, 315, Adaikalapattinam,Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such payment/deposit being made, the claimant/employer 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis is permitted to withdraw the same from the Workmen Compensation Tribunal, by filing necessary application. Further, the amount already deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company is ordered to be refunded to them by the Tribunal.
12.With these directions and observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
21.04.2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No vsn To
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.
vsn PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN C.M.A(MD)No.603 of 2020 and C.M.P(MD)No.6238 of 2020 21.04.2022 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis