AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chidananda Ullal, J.—This appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company to challenge the order dated 10-4-1997 in case No. WC.CR. 26/95 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Bangalore Division No. 3, Bangalore, insofar as the same related to the fastening of the liability with regard to payment of interest on the award amount.
The appellant-Insurance Company is represented by the learned Counsel Sri S.P. Shankar. On the other side, the contesting respondent 1 is represented by Sri C.M. Desai. The respondent 3, the owner of the vehicle is represented by Sri C.M. Monappa. The respondent 2, the Indian Oil Corporation having been served with the notice had remained absent before Court,
Sri Shankar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company had taken me through the impugned order insofar as the same related to the payment of the interest on the award amount. The said part is discussed in para (16) of the impugned order. That discussion, as I see is on the Issue No. 6 framed by the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, Bangalore Division No. 3, Bangalore, henceforth in brief referred to as the ''WCC''. The ground urged in the instant appeal is also on the point of avoidance of the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company with regard to payment of interest on the award amount. With reference to the copy of the policy in question, Sri Shankar submitted that there was a specific agreement between the insured and the insurer i.e., the respondent 3 on the one side and the appellant-Insurance Company on the other that the insurer will not be having liability with regard to the indemnification of the payment of nterest and penalty on the insurer. To cull out the said part of the term of the agreement between the appellant-Insurance Company and the respondent 3, the same reads as hereunder:
"It is hereby understood and agreed that the cover provided under the policy shall not extend to indemnify the insured/insured in respect of any interest and/or penalty, which may be imposed on him/them on account of his/their failure to comply with the requirements laid down under the WC Act, 1923 and subsequent amendments of the said Act".
In this context I feel it appropriate to quote para (16) of the impugned order. To do that, the same reads as hereunder:
On a simple reading of the above, it appears to me that the WCC had fastened the liability with regard to payment of interest at 6% on the award amount for the reason that the appellant-Insurance Company did not comply with the request of the respondent 3 with regard to deposit of the same since liable under the WC Act, despite there being a clear communication emanated from the respondent 3-owner. Therefore, it appears to me that the term as set out above in the insurance policy has got no play in the matter of compliance of the deposit by the appellant-Insurance Company within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the incident in question. Needless to say that the appellant-Insurance Company on its own, on receiving of the communication from the respondent 3-owner, would have deposited the sum in question well in time as required under the WC Act.
In that view of the matter, I feel that the instant appeal does not merit any consideration. In this context, it is apt to observe here that the appellant-Insurance Company despite knowing their statutory position recourse to the instant appeal before this Court to challenge the impugned order insofar as the same related to the interest part. According to me, the respondents herein were made to come before this Court for no good reason, for, it had to pay the interest as it had not deposited the sum within 30 days of occurrence of the accident.
Therefore, it appears to me that the contesting respondent 1 who chose to appear before this Court by engaging the services of the Counsel has to be compensated with the cost by the appellant-Insurance Company. That cost, I fairly assess at Rs. 3,000/-.
Let the Insurance Company pay the said sum to the respondent 1 within a period of 2 months from the date of this order. It is also added that, in the event the direction herein made with regard to payment of cost is not made, the respondent 1 is at liberty to recourse to law to recover the said cost imposed in the instant appeal.
From the side of the respondent 1, Sri Desai submitted that even if there were to be any contract between the parties, the said contract is of no consequence, insofar as the statutory liability is concerned.
The appeal therefore stands dismissed with the above cost as against the appellant-Insurance Company.