AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act) is directed against the award
of the Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation Act (ALC), Kishtwar (hereinafter referred to as “the Commissionerâ€) dated 08.02.2010.
Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the deceased-workman, namely, Ghulam Mohd. Ganai was employee of
respondent No.8. He met with an accident under and in the course of employment with respondent No.8 on 13.06.2006 and sustained grievous injuries
to which he later succumbed on 26.06.2006. The respondent No.1 is wife of the deceased whereas respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are his children. The
respondent No.1 to 7 filed a claim petition under the Act before the Commissioner alleging therein that the deceased at the time of accident was 45
years old and earning monthly wages of Rs.4,000/-. It was also pleaded that since the accident had taken place under and in the course of
employment of respondent No.8, as such, respondent No.8 was liable to pay compensation in terms of Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act.
The appellant was also arrayed as party respondent on the ground that the appellant had insured respondent No.8 qua five labourers working under
him. The notices in the claim petition were sent to the appellant as well as respondent No.8. Both chose not to appear and contest the claim.
Accordingly, the claim petition proceeded ex-parte and culminated into passing of the award to the tune of Rs.3,38,880/- in favour of respondent Nos.
1 to 7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal after making requisite pre-deposit of the whole of the awarded
amount i.e. Rs.3,38,880/- before the Commissioner.Â
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The only argument raised by the appellant in this appeal to assail the validity of the award is that the respondent No.8 had sought insurance cover
with regard to five labourers working under him and had disclosed their monthly wages as Rs.1200/- for which the appellant-Company had charged
requisite premium and therefore, the appellant cannot be fastened with the liability higher than the one computable by reference to the wages of the
deceased as Rs.2700/-. It is, thus, submitted that the Commissioner while awarding compensation has taken the wages of the deceased-workmen as
Rs.4,000/- per month and, accordingly, worked out the compensation.
The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that he is not against the award of compensation given by the Commissioner but is
aggrieved only to the extent of liability fastened on the appellant-Insurance Company. He, therefore, submitted that the liability of the Company is only
to the extent of payment of such compensation as would became payable by taking the monthly wages of the deceased as Rs.1200/- per month and
rest of the award is required to be satisfied by the owner.
Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant on this aspect. It is noticed that the appellant-Company had not filed any
objection/statement of fact before the Commissioner and it had chosen not to contest the claim. The relevant Clause in the Insurance Policy providing
for the limited liability of the Insurance Company, as projected by the learned counsel for the appellant, was neither pleaded nor proved and was not
even brought to the notice of the Commissioner. Except the cover note which is part of the appeal, nothing more has been brought to my notice. I tried
to find out as to whether there is any such condition in the Insurance Policy which restricts the liability of the Insurance Company in the manner it is
argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, I found none.
The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the Appellant-Insurance Company had charged premium on the basis of annual
wages of each workman, as such, its liability cannot be beyond what is workable in reference to the wages disclosed by the insured. The argument is
seemingly attractive but does not find support from any terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and atleast none was brought to notice of this
Court. Needless to say that the Commissioner is the final authority on facts and the appeal lies only, if there is substantial question of law involved. For
determination of such substantial question of law, Court is supposed to rely on the material on record.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find that having regard to the material on record any substantial question of law arises for determination in this
case. The abstract questions of law divorced from supporting material on record are not required to be determined only to satisfy the academic
hunger. The appeal, therefore, fails and hence dismissed. The Commissioner is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of respondent Nos. 1
to 7.