BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :04/12/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU CRP.PD(MD).No.2046 of 2008 and M.P(MD).No.1 of 2008 Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Sub Collection Office Road, Dindigul ..Petitioner Vs 1.Selvi.Kausalya 2.The Manager, Srinithi Synthetic Mill, Kalangipatty Post, Ottanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District. ..Respondents PRAYER Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 25.08.2008, passed in I.A.No.51 of 2007 in W.C.No.125 of 2007, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul and pass such further or other orders. !For Petitioner ... Mr.K.Bhaskaran ^For Respondents... Mr.R.Sundar :ORDER
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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”.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to
a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2005 ACJ 409, National
Insurance Company 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.”
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. In fine, the Civil Revision petition is allowed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.
ns/srm
To
The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation,
(Deputy Commissioner of Labour),
Dindigul