AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Manohar, J.—The United India Insurance Company Limited being aggrieved by the award dated 30-7-2005 passed in WCA/FC/CR-30/2004 by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Sub-Division-4, Bangalore filed this appeal.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The legal representatives of the deceased N. Manjunath filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation contending that deceased N. Manjunath, was the husband of the first claimant, son of the second claimant and father of the 3rd claimant was working as a Scrap folder under the first Respondent. On 8-9-2004, while doing the work of scrap folding of the air condition machine, the deceased fell down from the 4th floor and died on the spot during the course of employment. The claimants contended that the deceased was aged about 32 years as on the date of death and he was getting a salary of Rs. 3,900/- p.m. Since the first Respondent has taken the policy, the second Respondent has to compensate the claimants due to the death of the deceased and filed a claim petition seeking for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
In pursuance to the notice issued by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, the first Respondent has not filed any objections. However, the Insurer filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and also contended that immediately after the accident, taking into consideration the salary drawn by the deceased, they had already deposited Rs. 1,61,328/- as per the agreement entered into between them and the first Respondent and the said amount may be given to the claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petition against the second Respondent.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation framed necessary issues.
In order to prove the case, the first claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and produced the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and she was cross-examined by the second Respondent-Insurer. The Owner has admitted that the deceased was working as a Scrap Folder under the first Respondent and they were paying him a salary of Rs. 100/-per day.
The Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation after considering the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, held that the deceased was working under the first Respondent and the first Respondent was paying a salary of Rs. 100/- per day. It was further held that the first Respondent himself has admitted that the deceased was working under their Establishment Hence, he is the workman under the Workmen''s Compensation Act and also held that the deceased died during the course of employment. The Police have also registered a case. Hence, it is clear that the deceased died during the course of employment. It is also observed that the claimants have produced necessary documents to show that they are the legal representatives and dependants of the deceased. Ex.P.1 is the death certificate of the deceased, Ex.P.2 is the marriage invitation card and Ex.P.3 is the Ration Card. In the Ration Card, names of all the claimants have been mentioned. Hence, the Commissioner has held that the claimants are the dependants of the deceased and they are entitled to seek compensation. Further, taking into consideration the age, salary of Rs. 100/- per day earned by the deceased and also applying the relevant factor, the Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,02,490/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of claim petition. Further, the Commissioner has clearly observed that the agreement entered into between the first Respondent and the second Respondent is not binding on the claimants and they are entitled to compensation as per Section 4 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act and allowed the claim petition.
The Insurer being aggrieved by the award passed by the Commissioner, filed this appeal.
Sri. A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that as per the agreement entered into between the Insurer and the first Respondent, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,61,328/- and the Commissioner cannot award the compensation of Rs. 3,02,490/-, which is contrary to their agreement. He further submitted that the interest awarded by the Commissioner is contrary td the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and sought for setting aside the award passed by the Commissioner.
On the other hand, Sri. T. Puttaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents-claimants contended that the agreement entered into between the first Respondent and the Insurer is contrary to the Workmen''s Compensation Act. When once the Commissioner has given a finding that the deceased was a workman and the claimants are entitled for the compensation as per the Workmen''s Compensation Act, the parties by entering into an agreement cannot deny the legal entitlement of the claimants under the Act and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
We have carefully gone through the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation and the oral and documentary evidence of the parties.
It is not in dispute that the deceased N. Manjunath was working under the 4th Respondent/establishment in this appeal and on 8-9-2004 while discharging the duty as a Scarp Folder, he fell down from the 4th floor and died on the spot. The claimants are entitled for compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act. The owner of the establishment and the Insurer cannot enter into a private negotiation and deny the lawful compensation for which the claimants are entitled to under the Act. In the instant case, the owner himself has admitted that he was paying a salary of Rs. 100/- per day and the Insurer themselves have admitted that the establishment is covered under the insurance. Hence, the claimants are entitled to compensation as per the Workmen''s Compensation Act and they are not bound by the private negotiation entered into between the Appellant and the fourth Respondent.
In the instant case, the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- p.m. The Commissioner taking 50% of the salary and by applying relevant factor has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,02,490/- which is in accordance with law. We find that there is no illegality in the award passed by the Commissioner.
The further contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the rate of interest awarded by the Commissioner at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in AIR 2009 SCW 3717 in the case of the Oriental Insurance Co. Limited v. Mohd. Nasir and Ors. has some substance. In the above said judgment, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the passing of the award and at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of passing of the award till deposit. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal filed by the Appellant is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation is confirmed. However, the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the passing of the award and at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of passing of the award till deposit.
The amount, in deposit, if any is ordered to be sent to the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Bangalore.