Dismissed

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Gopalakrishnan

Kerala HC4 Mar 2024MFA (ECC)/131/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed appeals against the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. It held that a wage amendment notification applied prospectively only, not retrospectively to pre-notification accidents. Regarding the insurer, the court maintained that adverse inferences from ex-parte proceedings remain valid.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of both MFA (ECC) No. 172 of 2012 and No. 131 of 2013.

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945
MFA (ECC) NO. 172 OF 2012

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2011 IN WCC NO.44 OF 2009 OF THE
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/APPLICANT:

¶6

GOPALAKRISHNAN

¶7

S/O. SUBBAYYAN IYYER, KAKKAYILVILA PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KALLINGAL, KULATHOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.V.ANOOP
SRI.K.V.SREERAJ

¶9

RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES:

¶10

1 MANAGER OCEANUS BLUE MOUNT, M/S. OCEANUS DWELLING PRIVATE LIMITED, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 007

¶11

2MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶12

BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN THIRUVALLA
SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶13

THIS MFA (ECC) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 04.03.2024,
ALONG WITH MFA (ECC).131/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

MFA (ECC) Nos.172 of 2012 & 131 of 2013

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶19

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶20

MFA (ECC) NO. 131 OF 2013

¶21

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2011 IN WCC NO.44 OF 2009 OF THE
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶22

APPELLANT/2ND OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶23

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
KOCHI-31,REP.BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM

¶24

BY ADV SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

¶25

RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT AND 1ST OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶26

1GOPALAKRISHNAN
S/O.SUBBAYYAN IYYER,
KAKKAYILVILA PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU,
KALLINGAL, KULATHOOR P O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001

¶27

2THE MANAGER
OCEANUS BLUE MOUNT,
M/S.OCEANUS DWELLING PVT LTD,
SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001

¶28

BY ADVS.
P.V.ANOOP
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
K.V.SREERAJ
P.PRIJITH
P.MARTIN JOSE

¶29

THIS MFA (ECC) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 04.03.2024, ALONG
WITH MFA (ECC).172/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶30

¶31

MFA (ECC) Nos.172 of 2012 & 131 of 2013

FOLLOWING:

T.R.RAVI.J

MFA (ECC) Nos.172 of 2012 & 131 of 2013

¶36

Dated this the 04^th day of March, 2024

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Both these cases arise from the order dated 20.10.2011

¶39

in WC Case No.44 of 2009 before the Court of Commissioner

¶40

for Workmen’s Compensation, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant in MFA No.172 of 2012 is the claimant before the Commissioner. He was a headload worker, who has injured during the course of employment and suffered 24% disability. The employer and the insurer remained ex-parte before the Commissioner. Commissioner fixed compensation based on a wage of Rs.4,000/- per month. The accident took place on 23.03.2008 and the order of the Commissioner was issued on

¶41

¶42

MFA (ECC) Nos.172 of 2012 & 131 of 2013

¶43

20.10.2011. The contention of the appellant in MFA No.172 of

¶44

2012 is that on 31.05.2010, a notification had been issued amending the monthly wages as per the Workmen’s Compensation Act re-fixing the same as Rs.8,000/- per month instead of Rs.4,000/- per month. It is hence contended that

¶45

the benefit of the said amendment should be available to all orders issued by the Commissioner after the date of the amendment.

¶46

Senior Counsel Sri. George Cherian appearing for the respondents on instruction by Smt. K.S.Santhi submitted that amendment takes effect only after the date of the amendment, that it is not retrospective in operation and that it will not apply to accidents which occurred prior to that date. The question whether the amendment applies from earlier date does not warrant any argument since the notification itself

¶47

¶48

MFA (ECC) Nos.172 of 2012 & 131 of 2013

¶49

says that it will come into effect from the date of the

¶50

publication of the notification. Sinc e there is no r etrospective operation of the amendment, I do not find anything wrong with the order passed by the Commissioner. No grounds made

¶51

out warranting interference with the order of the

¶52

Commissioner. MFA No.172 of 2012 fails and is dismissed.

¶53

MFA No.131 of 2013 has been preferred by the Insurance Company contending that the Commissioner had wrongly concluded that the polic y covers the accident in question. It is contended that the employee is not covered by

¶54

the Contractor’s All risks policy. The order of the Commissioner shows that the insurance company did not appear and file any reply, that they were declared ex-parte and that an adverse inference was drawn that the company is admitting all the averments set forth by the applicant. I do

¶55

¶56

MFA (ECC) Nos.172 of 2012 & 131 of 2013

¶57

not think that the said findings should be set aside in an

¶58

appeal filed by the Insurance Company, particularly in case of claims under a beneficial legislation. MFA No.131 of 2013

¶59

fails and is dismissed.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI

JUDGE

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Gopalakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Gopalakrishnan

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

Fathima K Vs Anvar .T

Raheema.P.v Vs State of Kerala

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Lalson Vavachan

State of Kerala Vs Haridasan Nair

State of Kerala Represented by the Special Tahsildar La (Railways) Vs Karthyayani

Gopalakrishnan Vs the Manager