NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. LAILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are against an award passed under the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923, for short, 'W.C. Act'. The owners of a premises (Kalyanamandapam) and the insurer from whom they had taken a policy of insurance are the appellants. Going by the material facts disclosed by the pleadings and the evidence on record, it is not disputed by the owners that one Firoz, engaged to clean the windows, doors etc., in the course of preparation of painting works of the premises fell down from a height while working and died in the course of his such engagement. His parents, widow and son made the claim. The Commissioner found employer-employee relationship and held that there was a valid insurance cover. Accordingly, the impugned award was passed directing the insurer to indemnify the owners and requiring the owners to pay the interest component under S. 4(A) of the W.C. Act.

(2.) The insurer's appeal is on the ground that liability under the WC Act is not covered by the public liability policy (for non-industrial risks) issued by it and evidenced by Ext. B1. The owners appeal against the direction to pay the interest component.

(3.) Insurer's learned counsel argued that "injury to any person under a contract of employment or apprenticeship with the Insured when such injury arises out of the execution of such contract" is excluded/exempted as per Clause 8.15 in Ext. B1. The scope of indemnity as per clause 4.1 of Ext. P1 extends only to liabilities that the insured may incur on account of actions of his/their employees and the provisions do not provide indemnity cover for any liability that the insured may incur qua any employee or apprentice, it is argued.