Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Selvi. Kausalya and The Manager, Srinithi Synthetic Mill

S. Palanivelu, J.—The petitioner is proposed party before the Workmen''s Compensation, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul. The

first respondent has filed the claim petition in W.C. No. 125 of 2007. Originally, the second respondent was alone on the array of the respondent

and thereafter, she filed an application in I.A. No. 51 of 2007, to implead this petitioner as the second respondent by alleging that there was an

agreement between both the respondents for payment of compensation to the employees of the second respondent.

The petitioner appeared before the said authority, filed the counter and resisted the application to implead the company as party to the

proceedings. The authority below allowed the application by observing that the policy came to existence on the agreement of both the respondents

and hence, it is necessary to implead the Insurance Company also as party. The said order is challenged before this Court.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent. In spite of service of notice on the first respondent, she had not made

appearance.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. K. Bhaskaran, would contend that even though a policy has been taken by the second respondent

with regard to the compensation available to his employees on any contingency, it is restricted only to medical expenses and the said claim has

been described in the policy as ""Mediclaim Section Extension - Accidental Mediclaim Hospitalisation only"". The policy taken by the second

respondent is scrutinised by this Court. It is seen that for hundred textile workers, the second defendant has paid a premium of Rs. 16,673/- and

total sum insured is Rs. 50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) and sum insured per person is Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). The

policy was in force from 30.09.2003 to 29.09.2004. The policy is captioned as ""Group Personal Accident-Unnamed"".

It is not debatable that the first respondent was working under the second respondent in his Winding Textile Mill on 20.02.2004. While she was

attending her duty at about 9 p.m., her left ring-finger got crushed and she was admitted to Christian Fellowship Hospital in Ottanchathram. The

entire finger was crushed and it was amputated.

Adverting to the fact in issue, it is made clear that each Textile worker under the second respondent is eligible only to a maximum compensation

of Rs. 50,000/- alone, proportionate to the gravity of the injury. Hence, the contention that the petitioner is liable to pay to the extent of Rs.

50,000/- alone for each textile worker which is in maximum is acceptable.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in National Insurance

Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Prabhu Das and Another, wherein the learned Judges have expressed their views that when the policy does not cover the claim

under the provisions of Workmen''s Compensation Act, the Insurance Company could not be anchored with the responsibility of paying the

compensation as per the provisions of the Act. The discussion undertaken by the Division Bench is as follows:

On the basis of the said policy, a sum of Rs. 94,250/- was paid to the respondent No. 1. Since the said policy does not cover any claim under the

Workmen''s Compensation Act, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation more and above the amount already paid. From the evidence

available on record, we 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 Deputy Commissioner, without even

appreciating the scope of the said policy, has found that the insurance company is liable to pay the amount fixed by the insurance company in view

of Exh.R-1. The learned 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.

In this case, it is seen that the policy is not the one issued under the Workmen''s Compensation Act. But, it is only a Group Personal Accident

Policy for accidental mediclaim hospitalisation alone. Hence, the Insurance Company need not be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before

the authority. If the claimant desires, she may apply before the petitioner and to get the compensation proportionate to the gravity of injury, which

she suffered. For the rest of the compensation, she may agitate before the authority below against the second respondent.

In such a view of this matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner need not be a party to the proceedings before the

authority below and the order passed by him is not at all sustainable in view of settled principles of this Court. The impugned order deserves to be

set aside and accordingly it is set aside.

In fine, the Civil Revision petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.