UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs Green Agro Owners Association

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.07.2012 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 110/2011 Green Agro Owners Association and Anr. Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District forum dismissing complaint was set aside and complaint was allowed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that husband of Complainant No. 2/Respondent No. 2 late Sonabhai Bhurabhai Bariya was employee of Complainant No.1/Respondent No.1 and on 19.9.2003 while doing work of demolition of Gokul bungalows RCC wall fell on him and he was declared dead. It was further alleged that Complainant No. 1 had taken workman compensation policy of Rs.3,00,000/ - from OP/petitioner for a period of one year from 17.9.2003 to 16.9.2004. Complainant No. 2 lodged complaint with OP which was repudiated as he was not employee of Complainant No. 1. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as workman compensation policy was issued, Consumer Fora had no jurisdiction to entertain complaint. It was further submitted that as per investigators report, husband of Complainant No. 2 was not employee of Complainant No.1, but was employee of Contractor Mohanbhai Marwadi and was working under him and claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Complainant filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal and directed OP to pay Rs.3,00,000/ - to Complainant No. 2 with 9% p.a. interest and further allowed Rs.10,000/ - compensation for mental shock against which this revision petition along with application for condonation of delay has been filed.

NONE appeared for Respondent No. 2 even after service and he was proceeded ex -parte and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay of 37 days occurred in taking approval at various levels of the office(s) which may be condoned. As there is delay of only 37 days in filing revision petition and explanation has been given by petitioner regarding delay in getting approval from various offices and legal advisor, delay in filing revision petition stands condoned.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no complaint was maintainable before Consumer Fora and as per investigators report deceased was not employee of Respondent No.1, even then, learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal and allowing complaint; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of policy reveals that Respondent No. 1 obtained insurance coverage of Rs.3,00,000/ - for 7 employees for a period of one year from 17.9.2003 to 16.9.2004. As per averments in the complaint, husband of Complainant No.2 was employee of complainant no. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per investigators report deceased was not employee of Respondent No.1 and learned State commission committed error in allowing appeal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place investigators report on record and in the absence of any such report, it cannot be inferred that deceased was employee of Mohanbhai Marwadi and was not directly employed with Respondent No. 1. Learned State Commission rightly observed that deceased was the employee of Respondent No.1.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that complainant should have approached under workman''s compensation Act for claim. Admittedly, policy was taken by Respondent No. 1 for his 7 employees and once it is established that deceased was employee of Respondent No. 1 at the time of incident, deceased was entitled to receive compensation from petitioner as per policy. As petitioner repudiated claim, it amounted to deficiency of service and complaint filed by respondents before District Forum was maintainable. Respondents were not required to approach to the authorities under workman compensation Act and learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal.

I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.