Devendra Kumar Singh vs Oriental Insurance Company

Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J.—This appeal has been preferred by employer, namely, Devenndra Kumar Singh against the judgment and award dated 26th November, 2009 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi-cum-Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, in connection with W.C. Case No. 13 of 2007, whereby the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 1,94,916 as compensation to the claimant/respondent Nos 2 and 3. The issue involved in this appeal is limited to the extent, whether additional premium of Rs. 100 paid by the appellant covers the risk of cleaner or not.

The appellant has filed copy of the insurance policy at Annexure-3 which has been marked as Exhibit 5 in the Court below. It is pointed out that additional premium of Rs. 100 was paid to cover the risk of driver and cleaner. It is further pointed out that in the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondent/Insurance Company, they have admitted in para 3 that additional premium of Rs. 100 covers risk of one driver, one cleaner and two labourers. Since the Respondent/Insurance Company has admitted that the policy issued against Dumper No. JH018961, covers risk of one driver, one cleaner and two labourers, the Respondent/Insurance Company should have been directed to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and, therefore, the judgment of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi-cum-Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation is incorrect to this extent and that is to be set aside and the Insurance Company may be directed to satisfy the awarded amount.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Insurance Company has raised objections and submitted that the appellant appeared before the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi-cum-Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, but did not file show cause/written statement even after taking adjournment and they have not participated in the proceeding.

I have gone through the impugned judgment, memo of appeal as well as the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondent/Insurance Company. It is true that the appellant had not cooperated in the proceeding by bringing valid document and he further failed to adduce evidence to justify that the policy against Dumper No. JH01-8961 covers the risk of driver, cleaner and two labourers, but the fact remains that the policy covers the risk of driver, cleaner and two labourers and this fact is more or less admitted by the Respondent/Insurance Company in the counter-affidavit filed by them. Since the Insurance policy brought on record was clearly indicating that payment of additional premium of Rs. 100 was covering risk of the driver, cleaner and two labourers, the learned Commissioner should have looked into the matter before coming to the conclusion.

It is also to be kept in mind, if the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation for deciding the issue as indicated above, it will take more time and for that the claimants will have to suffer, which would not be proper.

In these circumstances, the claimants/respondents are given authority to withdraw the amount of compensation deposited by the appellant with the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi-cum-Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation. So far as reimbursement of compensation amount is concerned, it is necessary to give some lesson to the appellant because due to his laches, the parties were compelled to face unnecessary litigations. In these circumstances, the Respondent/Insurance Company shall reimburse only Rs. 1,75,000 to the insured and the appellant shall be entitled to receive Rs. 1,75,000 only against the awarded amount which he had deposited with the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi-cum-Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation. With these observations and modification in the award, the appeal stands allowed.