Partly allowed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lilly

Kerala HC1 Oct 2020MFA (ECC)/75/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal by Oriental Insurance against a workmen's compensation award, the Court held that pre-2000 amendment limits on monthly income apply. The court allowed the appeal partially, setting the compensation at Rs.2,15,280 with interest from the accident date.

What did the court decide?

Appellant liable to pay Rs.2,15,280 with 12% interest from date of accident plus funeral expenses of Rs.2,500/-.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Lilly — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 9TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

MFA.No.75 OF 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.09.2010 IN W.C.C.NO.69/2006 OF COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION, KOLLAM

¶7

APPELLANT/2ND OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶8

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)

¶10

RESPONDENT/1ST OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶11

1 LILLY, FRANSINA MANDIRAM, THEKKUMBHAGOM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. PIN-691 583.

¶12

2 PHILOMINA.B., FRANSINA MANDIRAM, THEKKUMBHAGOM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. PIN-691 583.

¶13

3 LAWRENCE.B., FRANSINA MANDIRAM, THEKKUMBHAGOM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. PIN-691 583.

¶14

4 P.S.THOMAS, SADANANDA VILASOM, PADAPPAKKARA.P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM. PIN-691 501.

¶15

R1-3 BY ADVS. SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU

¶16

SRI.PRATHEESH.P R4 BY ADV. SUNNY ZACHARIAH

¶17

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

M.F.A.(WCC)No.75/2012

¶19

-:2:-

¶20

Dated this the 1^st day of October,2020

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The second respondent, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kollam in W.C.C.No.69/2006 before Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Labour Commissioner, is the appellant.

¶23

The applicants who are the dependents of deceased Sri. Augustine Junior B. Rodriguoz claimed compensation before the Commissioner under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923(for short, 'the Act'). The accident occurred on 19.10.1998, while the deceased was driving a lorry bearing registration No.KL-2-B-5500 owned by the fourth respondent herein and hit by another vehicle. The learned Commissioner found that the accident was during the course of employment of the deceased and awarded an amount of Rs.4,30,560/- with interest taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- based on Ext.A9 certificate issued by his employer.

¶24

The sole contention of the appellant/ Oriental Insurance is that the monthly income taken for fixing the compensation as Rs.4,000/was against the provisions of the Act. The learned

¶25

M.F.A.(WCC)No.75/2012

¶26

-:3:-

¶27

counsel pointed out that since the date of accident was on 19.10.1998, what in fact applied to the facts on hand was the un-amended Section 4 of the Act. Before Section 4 was amended in 2000, the maximum income that could have been taken could not exceed Rs.2,000/-. That means, the compensation should have been calculated based on half of the monthly income applying the age factor. The age factor is not disputed by the appellant. If so applied, the amount of compensation should have been fixed as Rs.2,15,280/-(2,000x50x215.28÷100). The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 was not in a position to dispute the factual as well as the legal position canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶28

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the interest awarded by the learned Commissioner from the date of accident was against law. It is contended that it should have been made payable only from the date of knowledge of the accident and accident came to the notice of the Insurance Company only when notice of the proceeding was received. The learned counsel for

¶29

M.F.A.(WCC)No.75/2012

¶30

-:4:-

¶31

the respondents 1 to 3 seriously opposed this argument and submitted that the liability for payment of interest was fixed with reference to the date of accident is not liable to be interfered with. I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and therefore, subject to the modification made in the monthly income taken by the learned Commissioner, the impugned order requires to be sustained.

¶32

In the result, appeal is allowed in part modifying the impugned order as follows:

¶33

The appellant will be liable for an amount of Rs.2,15,280/- with 12% interest from the date of accident (19.10.1998) and funeral expenses of Rs.2,500/-, failing which the same shall be recovered in accordance with law.

¶34

All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR,JUDGE

DST

//True copy/

P.A.To Judge

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lilly

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lilly

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

Muhammedu Haji Vs Laila

Mohanan.M.R and Another Vs Union of India

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Thanka and Others

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Bhakaran

Suresh M. Vs Jiji Jacob

State Ofkerala, Rep.by Tahsildar, Kothamangalam Vs the Secretary, Nirmalgram Vannith Dairy Central Society