Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs P. Rathnappa and Others

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award dated 19.4.2010 passed in WCA:FC/CR/07/2008 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Kolar District, Kolar (hereinafter referred to as ''the Commissioner'' for short).

The respondents herein are the claimants before the Commissioner. They had made a claim for compensation relating to the death of their daughter Sumithra, who was aged 17 years at the time of accident. She was stated to be traveling as an employee in the tractor/trailer of M/s. V.S.N. Hatcheries (P) Ltd., Reddygunta village, Chittoor district (Andhra Pradesh). Admittedly, both tractor and trailer had been insured by the appellant/insurer and it was valid as on the date of accident. The accident took place on 11.1.2008 at about 8.00 a.m. in Chinnachellaragunte of Chittoor district. The Commissioner has come to the conclusion that there was relationship of employer and employee the first respondent therein/owner of M/s. V.S.N. Hatcheries (P) Ltd., and the deceased.

What is argued before this Court is that the claimants are the permanent residents of Chinnachellaragunte of Chittoor district and they had no right to file a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation at Kolar.

It is further argued that the insurance policy issued in respect of the trailer covered only the owner, who would carry goods in the trailer and not the employees. Further, the premium so collected from the owner is not in respect of coolies or loaders, but only the owner, who was carrying the goods in the trailer.

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sri Mallikethi Basappa and Others, has held that, the policy issued in respect of a trailer covers the risk of employees of the owner and that employees of the owner can always sit in the trailer either for loading or unloading purpose. On considering the policy, the Division Bench of this Court in the above case has specifically held that the insurance policy so issued would cover the risk of one employee relating to the trailer. Admittedly, the girl in the present case died in the accident during the course of employment and impeachable evidence is placed on record.

Insofar as territorial jurisdiction to file a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation is concerned, this plea is taken up for the first time before this Court and in the petition filed before the Commissioner, nothing is whispered about the jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Subhadra and Others Vs. Pankaj and Another, to contend that claimants were neither residing within the territorial jurisdiction of Kolar for their income nor the accident took place within the jurisdiction of Kolar District.

It is not the case of the insurer that certain documents have been fabricated to create a jurisdiction on the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation at Kolar. After perusing the evidence, nothing is suggested to them that they have falsely filed claim petition before the Commissioner, Kolar. Therefore, that plea is not available to the insurer before this Court.

Insofar as interest is concerned, the Commissioner has awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of one month after the accident till the date of deposit, in terms of the decision rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Siby George and Others, , while discussing the provisions of Section 4A of the Employee''s Compensation Act, the Commissioner has held that the claimants are entitled for interest @ 12% after one month from the date of accident on the compensation so awarded. The legislation being a welfare one, the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that interest to be paid is a statutory one and in view of the same, there is no merit in the present appeal. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The amount in deposit be sent back to the jurisdictional Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Kolar.