Dismissed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ananda Munjaji Kalse and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Feb 2019FA/306/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal against the Workers Compensation Commissioner's award. The court held that daily rated workers are covered, upheld the 40% disability assessment due to evidence of eye destruction, and affirmed the interest award for delayed deposit. The appeal was rejected.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the compensation deposit with interest was permitted to be withdrawn by the employee.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ananda Munjaji… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

944-FA-306-2006 judg .odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.306 OF 2006

¶5

National Insurance Co. Ltd, having
its Registered & Head-Office at No.
3, Middleton Street, Kolkata; one of
it's Divisional Office at Nanded, Now
through the Divisional Office at
Hazari Chambers, Station Road,
Aurangabad....Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.Ananda s/o Munjaji Kalse
Age: about 28 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o.- Shanktirth, Tq- Mudkhed,
Dist.- Nanded.

¶8

2.Uttamrao Bhalke,
Age: Major, Occ. Labour Contractor,
R/o. Opp. Z.P. High School, presently
at Dhanegaon,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ...Respondents

¶9

...

¶10

Mr. R.C. Bora h/f Mr. P.P. Bafna, Advocate for
Appellant.

¶11

Mr. Kiran M. Nagarkar, Advocate for Respondent
No.1.

¶12

...

¶13

CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
 DATED : 25th FEBRUARY, 2019.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

¶15

.The insurance company has preferred the

¶16

present appeal against the judgment and order

¶17

passed by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division
and Ex-officio Commissioner under the Workmens

¶18

Compensation Act at Nanded in W.C.N.F.A. No.7 of

¶19

944-FA-306-2006 judg .odt

¶20

(2)

¶21

2004 decided on 30.11.2005.

¶22

2.The present respondent no.1 had preferred
the aforesaid application under the provisions of
Workmens Compensation Act seeking compensation on
account of injuries caused to him as a result and
during course of employment with present respondent

¶23

no.2. It was the case of respondent no.1 who is
hereinafter referred to as the 'employee' that he
suffered injury to his right eye during the course
of his employment, which resulted in losing
complete vision of the right eye. The employee had
therefore claimed the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-
jointly and severally from respondent no.2
(hereinafter referred to as employer) and the
appellant-insurance company. The learned Tribunal
after having assessed the evidence on record has
held the employee entitled for compensation of
Rs.1,52,489/- jointly and severally from the
employer and the insurer. Aggrieved by, the
insurance company has preferred the present appeal.

¶24

3.Shri R.C. Bora the learned counsel holding
for Shri P.P. Bafna appearing for the appellant-
insurance company assailed the impugned award

¶25

944-FA-306-2006 judg .odt

¶26

(3)

¶27

mainly on three grounds. First that the employee

¶28

being a casual daily worker was not falling in the
definition of workmen under the provisions of the
Workmens Compensation Act and as such was not
liable to be granted any compensation under the
said Act. The second objection raised is about the
permanent disablement as has been assessed by the
Commissioner to the extent of 40%. The learned

¶29

counsel inviting my attention to entries 25 and 26
of Part-II in Schedule-I submitted that present is
the case wherein the employee had lost the vision
of one eye and as such the percentage of disability
was liable to be held not more than 30% whereas,
the Commissioner has held it 40%. The third
objection is as about the grant of interest. The
learned counsel submitted that the liability of

¶30

paying interest could not have been saddled on the
appellant-insurance company.

¶31

4.Shri Nagarkar, the learned counsel

¶32

appearing for the employee supported the impugned
judgment and award. The learned counsel submitted

¶33

that the Tribunal has rightly held the percentage
of disability to the extent of 40% in view of the

¶34

evidence brought on record. The learned counsel

¶35

944-FA-306-2006 judg .odt

¶36

(4)

¶37

further submitted that the employee was in fact a

¶38

permanent employee and even if it is held that he
was a daily rated worker, even then the liability
could not have been avoided by the employer and the

¶39

insurance company to pay him the compensation when
the injury was caused to him during the course of
employment. The learned counsel submitted that the
interest as has been awarded by the Commissioner is

¶40

also correctly awarded since, the amount of
compensation was not deposited within the period of
one month from the date of accident. The learned
counsel on all these grounds, prayed for dismissal
of the appeal.

¶41

5.The first objection raised by the

¶42

insurance company is liable to be rejected at the
threshold. The definition of employee as has been
given in the Workmens Compensation Act cannot be
interpreted to mean or to exclude a daily rated
worker from the said definition. Therefore, there
appears no substance in the objection raised that

¶43

the employee being a daily rated worker could not
have been held as workman entitled for the benefit
under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation
Act.

¶44

944-FA-306-2006 judg .odt

¶45

(5)

¶46

6.The another objection raised by the

¶47

appellant-insurance company as regard to percentage
of disability also does not carry any substance.

¶48

Entry 25 and 26 in Part-II of Schedule-I of the Act
read thus:

¶49

“25.Loss of one eye, without complications,
the other being normal.

¶50

26.Loss of vision of one eye, without
complications or disfigurement of eye ball,
the other being normal.

¶51

26A.Loss of partial vision of one eye.”

¶52

It has been argued by the learned counsel

¶53

that the evidence is only in respect of the loss of

¶54

vision of one eye and as such the percentage of

¶55

disability could not have been held by the
Commissioner more than 30%. I am, however, not

¶56

convinced with the objection so raised. Nothing is

¶57

brought on record in the cross-examination of the

¶58

employee that there were no complications or
disfigurement of the eye ball. The certificate

¶59

which is produced on record shows that there was

¶60

complete destruction of eye ball. Considering the

¶61

certificate on record, it does not appear to me

¶62

that the Tribunal has committed any error in

¶63

holding the percentage of disability in accordance

¶64

with entry no.25 in the schedule.

¶65

944-FA-306-2006 judg .odt

¶66

(6)

¶67

7.In so far as the aspect of interest is

¶68

concerned, since the amount of compensation was not
deposited by the employer, the interest has been
rightly awarded by the Commissioner at the rate of

¶69

6% p.a. and not at the maximum rate prescribed
under the provisions of the Act. Thus, none of the
objections raised by the insurance company appears
sustainable. The appeal being devoid of any merit
deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed.

¶70

8.The amount deposited by the appellant-

¶71

insurance company in this Court is permitted to be

¶72

withdrawn by respondent no.1 i.e. employee with
interest accrued thereon. The amount lying in this

¶73

Court in the present appeal be transmitted to the

¶74

Court of Employees Compensation Commissioner at
Nanded, so as to facilitate its withdrawal by the
original claimant.

¶75

Mujaheed//

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ananda Munjaji Kalse and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ananda Munjaji Kalse and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhukar Sangram Shrirame Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prabhakar Budhu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Tukaram Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Laxmibai Baburao Samindre and Ors. Vs Gurudas Pandharinath Lakhole and Ors.

Ayeshabee Maula Pathan (Died) His Lrs Dastagir Sikandar Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shahnur Rajju Pathan (Died) Thr Lrs Jilani and Ors. Vs the Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad and Ors.