Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurer's Appeal Against Compensation Award for Driver's Permanent Disablement. Employer and Insurer Held Jointly and Severally Liable Under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arises from a judgment and award dated 7th February 2020 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Judge, Tenth Labour Court, Mumbai, in Application (ECA) No. 336/C-80 of 2014. The respondent No.1 (original applicant) was employed as a driver with respondent No.2 (employer) on a tanker bearing registration No. GH-16/X-7166, which was insured with the appellant (Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.). On 18th March 2014, while the applicant was driving the vehicle at Mohol, District Solapur, he met with an accident resulting in permanent disablement. The applicant filed an application for compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner allowed the application and directed the appellant and respondent No.2 to jointly and severally pay Rs.8,70,576/- with simple interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization. Additionally, respondent No.2 was directed to pay a penalty of 40% of the compensation. The appellant-insurer challenged the award. The High Court, after considering the facts and submissions, upheld the award, holding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, and the insurer is liable to indemnify the employer. The appeal was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Employees' Compensation - Permanent Disablement - Arising out of Employment - Section 3 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - The applicant-driver suffered permanent disablement due to an accident while driving a tanker during employment - The court held that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, and the employer and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation (Paras 1-2).

B) Employees' Compensation - Penalty for Default - Section 4A(3) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - The employer failed to deposit compensation without sufficient cause - The court upheld the penalty of 40% of the compensation imposed by the Commissioner (Para 1).

C) Employees' Compensation - Interest - Section 4A(3) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - The court awarded simple interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization (Para 1).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation was justified in awarding compensation and penalty against the insurer and employer for permanent disablement suffered by the applicant-driver during the course of employment.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed. The judgment and award of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation dated 7th February 2020 is upheld.

Law Points

  • Employer's liability for compensation for personal injury caused by accident arising out of and in the course of employment
  • Insurer's liability to indemnify employer
  • Penalty for failure to deposit compensation without sufficient cause
  • Computation of compensation for permanent disablement
  • Interest on delayed payment
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (01) 67

First Appeal No. 102 of 2021

2022-01-10

N.J. Jamadar, J.

Ms. Kalpana R. Trivedi for appellant, Mr. Amol Gatane i/b Ms. Swati U. Mehta for respondent No.1

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Mr. Keshar Gopal Singh Thakur, Mr. Gurpreet Singh Saini

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against award of compensation for permanent disablement under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

Remedy Sought

Appellant-insurer sought to set aside the award directing payment of compensation and penalty.

Filing Reason

Insurer challenged the award on grounds of liability.

Previous Decisions

Commissioner for Employees' Compensation allowed the application and awarded compensation with interest and penalty.

Issues

Whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment? Whether the insurer is liable to indemnify the employer? Whether penalty under Section 4A(3) was justified?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the accident did not arise out of employment. Respondent No.1 supported the award.

Ratio Decidendi

The injury suffered by the applicant-driver arose out of and in the course of employment, making the employer liable under Section 3 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The insurer is jointly and severally liable to indemnify the employer. The employer's failure to deposit compensation without sufficient cause attracts penalty under Section 4A(3).

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal is directed against a judgment and award dated 7th February 2020 passed by learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Judge, Tenth Labour Court, Mumbai, in Application (ECA) No. 336/C-80 of 2014, whereby, the application preferred by respondent No.1-original applicant came to be allowed and appellant and respondent No.2-employer were directed to jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.8,70,576/- alongwith simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization for the permanent disablement suffered during the course of employment.

Procedural History

Respondent No.1 filed Application (ECA) No. 336/C-80 of 2014 before the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, Mumbai, which was allowed on 7th February 2020. The appellant-insurer filed First Appeal No. 102 of 2021 before the Bombay High Court against the said award.

Acts & Sections

  • Employees' Compensation Act, 1923: Section 3, Section 4A(3)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurer's Appeal Against Compensation Award for Driver's Permanent Disablement. Employer and Insurer Held Jointly and Severally Liable Under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Income Tax Case, Allows Investment Allowance and Revenue Expenditure Deduction. Processing of Ore Constitutes Manufacture or Production Under Section 32A of Income Tax Act, 1961.