JUDGEMENT
AMITAVA LALA,J. -
(1.) ALL the appeals are analogously heard because a common question is involved
herein. The common question is whether
insurance company is liable to pay
interest and/or penalty to the claimants
even in absence of contract between the
employer and insurance company or not.
According to us, it is obviously a
substantial question of law which requires
consideration at the threshold.
(2.) FIRST proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter
called as Act, 1923) categorically says
that no appeal shall lie against any
order unless any substantial question of
law is involved in the appeal. Therefore,
no appeal can be said to be maintainable
as a matter of course unlike the other law
or laws available in this field.
Very often we come across the appeals from such type of orders passed
by respective Commissioners under
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
(hereinafter called as the Commissioner)
under which the insurance companies are
fastened with the liabilities to pay the
interest and/or penalty irrespective of
payment of compensation without
verification of the contractual obligation
between the employers and insurance
companies. In the State of Uttar Pradesh,
the posts of Commissioners under the
Act, 1923 are being filled up by the
members of the executives not by the
members of the judiciary unlike other
States. Instead of being proud position
emerges to irrationality. It is not very far
to say about ignorance of law but
presently we say that the attitude
prevailing in the field is mechanical.
Hence, we want to give it top priority
even at the stage of admission.
(3.) IN (2006) 5 SCC 192 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harshadbhai
Amrutbhai Modhiya and another) the
Supreme Court held that by reason of the
provisions of the Act, an employer is not
statutorily liable to enter into a contract of
insurance unlike Section 147 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. However, Section 17
of the Act, 1923 does not limit or make
any restriction from contracting out
between the employer and insurer. The
terms of a contract of insurance would
depend upon the volition of the parties. A
contract of insurance is governed by the
provisions of the Insurance Act. In terms
of the provisions of the Insurance Act, an
insured is bound to pay premium which is
to be calculated in the manner provided
therein. With a view to minimise his
liability, an employer can contract out so
as to make the insurer not liable as
regards indemnifying him in relation to
certain matters which do not strictly arise
out of the mandatory provisions of any
statute. Contracting out, as regards
payment of interest by an employer,
therefore, is not prohibited in law. The
entitlement of the claimant under the Act,
1923 is to claim the compensation from the employer. As between the employer
and the insurer the rights and obligations
would depend upon the terms of the
insurance contract.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.