Insurer Failed To Prove Employer's Non-Adherence To Safety Measures Under Law: Karnataka HC Affirms Compensation To Deceased Employee’s Family
|The Karnataka High Court affirmed the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) that provided compensation to the family of a deceased stating that Tata AIG General Insurance (insurer) had failed to prove that the safety measures as required under the relevant statutory provisions were not been taken by an employer.
The deceased was an unskilled worker who had slipped and fell, causing his death, during the course of his employment at a project site. The petitioners, who were the family of the deceased, had filed a petition under Section 10 of the Employers Compensation Act (the Act) arraying the employer and the insurer for claiming compensation for the death.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) had awarded the compensation to the family of the deceased. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed an appeal before the High Court.
The insurer had contended that the employee had not followed the safety measures, and therefore “the insurer ought not to be fastened with the liability to pay the compensation.”
The High Court considered the question as to whether the insurer had proved that no safety measures were adopted by the employer so as to exonerate the insurer from payment of the compensation
A Single Bench of Justice C.M. Poonacha observed, “The condition in the policy of insurance requires the insured to comply with all the statutory obligations. The insurer has not stated as to what are the statutory stipulations that the insured was required to comply…the investigator of the insurer, although having admitted to have taken photographs of the place of the accident, has not produced the same…he has not produced any statements of the co-workers which were recorded by him. The investigator has also not produced any notes made by him during the visit to the project site of the employer. ”
Advocate O Mahesh represented the appellant, while Advocate Adinarayan appeared for the respondents.
The Court answered the question in negative stating that the insurer had miserably failed in proving that the safety measures as required under the relevant statutory provisions have not been taken by the insured.
The Court then examined whether the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income of the deceased and stated that the Tribunal had adopted Section 4 of the Act to calculate the compensation to be awarded in cases of death caused during employment. The Court held that the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal was just and proper.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Tata AIG General Insurance Co Ltd v. Pramoda Chandra Sarkar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:7770)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate O Mahesh
Respondents: Advocates Adinarayan and A. Madhusudhan Rao