Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Employer in Workmen's Compensation Case, Holds Insurance Company Liable Despite Territorial Exclusion Clause. The court held that the territorial exclusion clause in the insurance policy does not absolve the Insurance Company from liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as the policy was issued for coverage of employees and the employer had paid premium.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 103
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by the parents of the deceased workman, Laxman, who died in an accident while loading cotton bales at the Agricultural Produce Market in Basmat. The Commissioner for Employee's Compensation awarded compensation of Rs.3,29,925/- with 12% interest and a penalty of Rs.1,64,963/- against the employer (respondent No.1), but exonerated the Insurance Company (respondent No.2) on the ground that the accident occurred outside the territorial limits of Hingoli Tahsil covered by the policy. The appellants challenged the exoneration of the Insurance Company. The High Court held that the territorial exclusion clause in the insurance policy does not absolve the Insurance Company from liability because the policy was issued under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the employer had paid premium for coverage of employees. The court noted that the Insurance Company had not proved that the policy was restricted to a specific area or that the premium was reduced accordingly. The court also upheld the penalty imposed on the employer under Section 4A of the Act for failure to deposit compensation within one month. The appeal was allowed, and the Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation amount with interest and penalty to the appellants, with liberty to recover the same from the employer if necessary.

Headnote

A) Workmen's Compensation - Employer's Liability - Territorial Exclusion Clause - Insurance Policy - The accident occurred at Basmat, outside the Hingoli Tahsil covered by the policy - The court held that the territorial exclusion clause in the insurance policy does not absolve the Insurance Company from liability as the policy was issued under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the employer had paid premium for coverage of employees - The Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the employer for the compensation awarded (Paras 4-6).

B) Workmen's Compensation - Penalty under Section 4A - Employer's Failure to Deposit Compensation - The Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs.1,64,963/- on the employer for not depositing compensation within one month - The court upheld the penalty as the employer failed to show any justification for delay (Para 6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the employer for compensation awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, when the accident occurred outside the territorial limits specified in the insurance policy.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Commissioner is modified. The Insurance Company (respondent No.2) is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.3,29,925/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the claim and penalty of Rs.1,64,963/- to the appellants. The Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the amount from the employer (respondent No.1) if it is not liable under the policy.

Law Points

  • Workmen's Compensation Act
  • 1923
  • Section 3
  • Section 4
  • Section 4A
  • Territorial exclusion clause
  • Insurance policy interpretation
  • Employer's liability
  • Penalty for delayed payment
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (BOM) (06) 13

First Appeal No.230 of 2013

2014-06-11

T.V. Nalawade, J.

Shri. Pramod C. Mayure (for appellants), Shri. P.S. Agarwal (for respondent No.1), Shri. M.S. Kulkarni (for respondent No.2)

Shamrao s/o Topaji Khandare and Leelabai w/o Shamrao Khandare

Eknath s/o Tukaram Kute (President Adarsh Maji Sainik Society) and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against judgment and order of the Ex-officio Commissioner for Employee's Compensation at Parbhani in WCFA No.5/2010, challenging the exoneration of the Insurance Company from liability.

Remedy Sought

The appellants sought to hold the Insurance Company liable for the compensation awarded for the death of their son.

Filing Reason

The Commissioner held the Insurance Company not liable due to a territorial exclusion clause in the policy, which the appellants challenged.

Previous Decisions

The Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.3,29,925/- with 12% interest and penalty of Rs.1,64,963/- against the employer only, exonerating the Insurance Company.

Issues

Whether the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the employer for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act when the accident occurred outside the territorial limits specified in the policy. Whether the penalty imposed on the employer under Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act is justified.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the Insurance Company should be liable as the policy was issued under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the employer had paid premium for coverage of employees. Insurance Company contended that the accident occurred at Basmat, which is outside Hingoli Tahsil, and thus not covered by the policy.

Ratio Decidendi

The territorial exclusion clause in an insurance policy issued under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, does not absolve the Insurance Company from liability if the employer has paid premium for coverage of employees, unless the Insurance Company proves that the policy was specifically restricted to a particular area and the premium was reduced accordingly. The employer's failure to deposit compensation within one month attracts penalty under Section 4A.

Judgment Excerpts

The Insurance Company has not produced any evidence to show that the policy was restricted to Hingoli Tahsil and that the premium was reduced accordingly. The Commissioner has not considered the fact that the policy was issued under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the employer had paid premium for coverage of employees.

Procedural History

The appellants filed a claim before the Ex-officio Commissioner for Employee's Compensation at Parbhani (WCFA No.5/2010). The Commissioner awarded compensation against the employer only, exonerating the Insurance Company. The appellants appealed to the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad (First Appeal No.230 of 2013).

Acts & Sections

  • Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: Section 3, Section 4, Section 4A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Regional Director's Rejection of Amalgamation Scheme Under Section 233 Companies Act — Regional Director Lacks Power to Reject, Must File Application Before NCLT if Scheme Not in Public Interest. The court held that the Re...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses SEZ Developer's Petition for Octroi Exemption and Refund. State SEZ Policy Exemption Not Enforceable Against Municipal Corporation Without Statutory Amendment.