Partly allowed

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

Kerala HC3 Sept 2013MFA (ECC)/71/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the insurer's appeal in part, holding that a policy condition excluding interest is valid. The insurer is not liable to pay interest awarded by the Commissioner, liability is confined to the principal award, and any excess deposit must be refunded.

What did the court decide?

The insurer is not liable to pay interest. The order of the Commissioner is modified to confine liability to the principal amount only. Excess deposit to be refunded to the appellant.

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Antony.I.Thadikkaran — Insurance | Kerala HC (2013)

¶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(WCC).NO. 71 OF 2012 ()

¶6

W.C.C. NO.84 OF 2002, COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, THRISSUR

¶7

APPELLANT/2ND OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶8

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/IST OPPOSITE PARTY AND APPLICANT:

¶11

1. ANTONY.I.THADIKKARAN MOOZHILIKULAM, KURUMANASSERY.P.O., ANGAMALY PIN-683 579.

¶12

2. MARY W/O.LOUIS KOMBAN HOUSE, CHEMMANKANDAM, P.O.POONNUKKARA THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) R2 BY ADV. SMT.R.RAJITHA

¶14

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.09.2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶16

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

¶17

M.F.A(WCC) No.71 of 2012 ====================================

¶18

Dated this the 03^rd day of September, 2013

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

First respondent is severed. Second respondent appears through counsel.

¶21

This appeal is preferred by the insurer, against the order dated 25.01.2011 in W.C.C. No.84 of 2002 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (for short, “the Commissioner”).

¶22

Second respondent claimed that while she was acting in the course of employment under the 1^st respondent, suffered injuries in the accident. The Commissioner found that the 2^nd respondent is entitled to get compensation and directed the appellant, being the insurer to pay the said amount with interest from the date of accident. The appellant-insurer is aggrieved to the extent that in view of the policy condition the appellant could not have been saddled with liability to pay interest awarded on the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner.

¶23

Learned counsel has invited my attention to the decision

¶24

M.F.A (WCC) No.71 of 2012

¶25

-: 2 :-

¶26

in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Murali (2013 (3) KLT 209) to contend that so far as the liability of the insurer under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, “the Act”) is concerned, it is confined to what is provided in the policy of insurance and that there is no statutory liability on the insurer to pay interest on the amount awarded by the Commissioner. It is further argued that Ext.M1, policy also specifically excludes the liability of the insurer to pay interest (A copy of that policy is given to me for perusal).

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent also.

¶28

In the decision cited supra it is held by the Division Bench that there is no law restraining the insurer and insured form entering into a contract confining obligation of the insurer to indemnify a particular right or amount so far as liability under the Act is concerned. It follows that liability of the insurer to indemnify the 2^nd respondent is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. Exhibit M1, policy shows that liability of the appellant to pay interest and penalty under the provisions of the Act is specifically excluded. It follows that the appellant is not liable to pay the interest awarded by the

¶29

M.F.A (WCC) No.71 of 2012

¶30

-: 3 :-

¶31

Commissioner. To that extent, the appeal is to be allowed and the order of the Commissioner, modified.

¶32

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part making it clear that the appellant is not liable to pay the interest awarded by the Commissioner as per order dated 25.01.2011 in W.C.C. No.84 of 2002 and that liability of the appellant would be confined to payment of the amount awarded less interest. It is also made clear that it is open to the 2^nd respondent to recover the interest awarded by the Commissioner from the 1^st respondent. Amount if any deposited by the appellant before the Commissioner in excess of its liability as above stated shall be refunded to the appellant.

¶33

The order of the Commissioner will stand modified to the above extent.

¶34

All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed.

¶35

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶36

vsv

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Abdul Raheem @ Raheem