Dismissed

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Abdul Raheem @ Raheem

Kerala HC3 Sept 2013MFA (ECC)/2/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court rejected the insurer's appeal against a Commissioner's order awarding workman compensation. Upholding the view that interest is a statutory liability not excluded by the policy, the court dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the Commissioner's order awarding compensation with interest is dismissed without any order as to costs.

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Abdul Raheem @ Raheem — Kerala HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/12TH BHADRA, 1935

¶5

MFA.No. 2 of 2012 ()

¶6

ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WCC 36/2004 of W.C.C.,KOZHIKODE DATED 17.08.2010

¶7

APPELLANT/2ND OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶8

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REP. BY ITS DY. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT & 1ST OPPOSITE PARTY RESPECTIVELY:

¶11

1. ABDUL RAHEEM @ RAHEEM S/O. MUHAMMED SALI, KODLERIMMAL HOUSE P.O.KARUVANTHIRUTHI, (VIA) FEROKE, CALICUT-673001.

¶12

2. J.K.CONSTRUCTIONS V.R.M ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN R1 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO

¶14

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶16

=========================

¶17

M.F.A(W.C.C).2 of 2012

¶18

============================ Dated this the 03^rd day of September, 2013

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Respondents appear through counsel.

¶21

This appeal is at the instance of the insurer, against the order dated 17.08.2010 in W.C.No.36 of 2004 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kozhikode (for short, "the Commissioner”).

¶22

First respondent claimed that while he was working under the second respondent, he suffered injuries in an accident on 27.09.2003. Though the second respondent denied employer-employee relationship with the first respondent, the Commissioner on evidence found in favour of the case of the first respondent and assessed compensation payable to him at `58,567/- with interest @12% per annum payable from the date of accident till payment.

¶23

The only contention raised by the appellant in this appeal is as to liability of the appellant/insurer to pay interest. Learned counsel for the appellant, after perusal of the policy of insurance has submitted that the policy does not exclude liability of the appellant to pay interest. If that be so, interest being a statutory liability is something which the insured is liable to pay. By virtue of the policy of insurance which does not exclude liability to pay interest, the appellant/insurer is liable to pay the interest. Hence the contention regarding non liability to pay

¶24

M.F.A(W.C.C).2 of 2012

¶25

¶26

interest is without merit.

¶27

No other point arises for consideration.

¶28

The appeal is dismissed without any order as to cost.

¶29

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶32

Sbna

¶33

True Copy

¶34

P.A to Judge

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Abdul Raheem @ Raheem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Abdul Raheem @ Raheem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Pappachan

Jerson Vs Sanjay Mithra

Safiya Vs Santhosh

State of Kerala Vs K.G.Georger

Special Tahsildar (La) Railways, Kayamkulam Vs Gopalan Nair

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Antony.I.Thadikkaran