Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Tajoddin Shaikh, filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, alleging that he was employed as a cleaner on truck No. MH-24-A-2220 owned by respondent No.1, S.R. Kombde, earning Rs.2,000 per month. On 27-01-1998, while removing stone supports from the tyres, the truck rolled and crushed his left foot, causing permanent disablement and loss of earning capacity. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Latur awarded Rs.1,37,124 with 12% interest per annum from the accident date. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Act seeking enhancement. The appeal was served on respondents; however, respondent No.1 (employer/owner) had died, and the bailiff report dated 17-04-2004 confirmed his death. No steps were taken to bring his legal heirs on record, and the Registrar (Judicial) passed an order on 01-02-2005 abating the appeal against respondent No.1. Even thereafter, no application was made to set aside the abatement for 18 years. The appellant sought enhancement only against respondent No.2 (insurer). The court held that under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the primary liability to pay compensation rests on the employer/owner. Since the appeal against the employer had abated, the appeal against the insurer alone could not be entertained. The court relied on Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi (1998 SC 4761) for the proposition that no award can be passed against the insurer in the absence of the owner. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Abatement of Appeal - Primary Liability of Employer - Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Appeal against employer abated due to death and failure to bring legal heirs - Held that primary liability to pay compensation rests on employer, and in absence of employer, appeal against insurer cannot be entertained (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act can be entertained against the insurer alone when the appeal against the employer/owner has abated.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The appeal against respondent No.1 (employer/owner) abated in 2005, and no steps were taken to set aside abatement. In absence of employer, appeal against insurer cannot be entertained.
Law Points
- Abatement of appeal against employer
- Primary liability of employer under Workmen's Compensation Act
- Insurer's liability only in presence of owner
