Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO 515/2018
Date of Decision: 31.01.2023 IN THE MATTER OF:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S. P. Jain and Mr. Narsingh, Advocates
Through: Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘EC Act’), the appellant/Insurance Company seeks setting aside of order dated 18.01.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation in Case No.CEC/SD/D/45/2015/1147-1153, whereby the appellant was directed to deposit Rs,7,68,560/- on account of death compensation payable to respondent Nos.[1] to 5/claimants alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 03.05.2015 till its realization, as well as an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- spent by the claimants on medical treatment of the deceased after the accident and prior to his death.
2. The appeal is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein it is averred that the order on the claim petition was reserved by the learned Commissioner and the appellant only became aware of its passing later. The delay is sought to be explained by stating that the concerned counsel of the appellant did not inform it timely of the passing of the order.
3. From a perusal of the records, it is apparent that after the impugned order was announced by the learned Commissioner, an application was filed by the claimants seeking initiation of recovery proceedings against the appellant. Pursuant to the same, letters were repeatedly directed to be issued by the learned Commissioner to concerned authorities, however, the amount was not deposited. Considering the aforesaid and the mandate of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I am of the opinion that the appellant has failed to make out any ‘sufficient cause’ to explain the delay occasioned in the present case. Be that as it may, as learned counsels appearing for the parties have addressed submissions on merits, I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record in entirety. In my considered view, no ground for interference with the impugned order is made out for the reasons discussed hereinafter.
4. The impugned order is sought to be assailed by the appellant on two grounds; first, that the learned Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition, and second, that employer-employee relationship between respondent No.6 and deceased was not established.
5. There is no gainsaying that labour statutes such as the EC Act constitute ‘beneficial legislation’ for the welfare of employees and should be liberally construed in their favour. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Jaya Biswal and Others v. Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Another reported as (2016) 11 SCC 201 has opined as under:- “20.The EC Act is a welfare legislation enacted to secure compensation to the poor workmen who suffer from injuries at their place of work. This becomes clear from a perusal of the preamble of the Act which reads as under: “An Act to provide for the payment by certain classes of employers to their workmen of compensation for injury by accident.” This further becomes clear from a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons, which reads as under: “…The growing complexity of industry in this country, with the increasing use of machinery and consequent danger to workmen, alongwith the comparative poverty of the workmen themselves, renders it advisable that they should be protected, as far as possible, from hardship arising from accidents. An additional advantage of legislation of this type is that, by increasing the importance for the employer of adequate safety devices, it reduces the number of accidents to workmen in a manner that cannot be achieved by official inspection. Further, the encouragement given to employers to provide adequate medical treatment for their workmen should mitigate the effects to such accidents as do occur. The benefits so conferred on the workman added to the increased sense of security which he will enjoy, should render industrial life more attractive and thus increase the available supply of labour. At the same time, a corresponding increase in the efficiency of the average workman may be expected.” (emphasis supplied)
21. Thus, the EC Act is a social welfare legislation meant to benefit the workers and their dependents in case of death of workman due to accident caused during and in the course of employment should be construed as such.”
6. With regard to territorial jurisdiction of Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, it is profitable to refer to Section 21 of the EC Act, which stipulates thus:-
7. On the issue of territorial jurisdiction in accident claims, it is expedient to advert to the decision of the Supreme Court in Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others reported as (2016) 3 SCC 43. The said case related to a motor accident claim where the Tribunal passed the award in favour of the claimant. The insurance company challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal before the Calcutta High Court. It claimed that since the accident had taken place at Hoogly and the claimant resided at Hoogly, jurisdiction of Tribunal at Kolkata was not made out. The High Court allowing the appeal held that the factum of the insurance company having an office address at Kolkata was not good enough to attract jurisdiction. The decision was challenged in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, while relying on its earlier decision in Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others reported as (2009) 2 SCC 244, observed that the provisions of territorial jurisdiction have to be interpreted consistently with the object of facilitating remedy for the victim of an accident. In such matters, a hyper-technical approach should not be taken and there exists no bar to a claim petition filed at a place where the insurance company has its place of business. The decision of the High Court was set aside and award of the Tribunal restored, while also noting that no prejudice had been caused to any party.
8. Relevant excerpt from the decision in Malati Sardar (Supra) is reproduced hereunder:-
9. Subsequently, the view taken in Malati Sardar (Supra) has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Kusum Devi and Anr. v. National Insurance Company Limited and Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 29326/2015, as well as by this Court in Savitri and Others v. Keshav Singh and Others reported as 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1044, which cases arose out of accident claims filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
10. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under:-
11. A plain reading of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would show that the same is akin to Section 21 of the EC Act. Both provisions stipulate places where claim petitions seeking compensation may be instituted under the respective Acts. The provisions are beneficial in nature and intended for the welfare of victims/their legal heirs. As such, even though the decisions referred to hereinabove were rendered in the context of the Motor Vehicles Act, the legal position set out therein applies squarely to the present case of EC Act.
12. Relying on the decision in Malati Sardar (Supra), objections to territorial jurisdiction have accordingly been thwarted by Single Benches of the Karnataka High Court, the Rajasthan High Court and the Allahabad High Court in The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Bellary v. Smt. Mahabunni and Ors., MFA No. 20690/2011, United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Narendra Kaur & Ors., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 993/2008 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Seema Devi and Ors., FAO 459/2020 respectively.
13. In Smt. Seema Devi (Supra), the objections to territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Gorakhpur were rejected as the insurance company had a regional office at the said place. Likewise, in Smt. Narendra Kaur (Supra), a case arising out of claimants’ application for compensation under the Act, the insurance company had raised an issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction, which was decided by the Commissioner in favour of the claimants. In proceedings before the High Court, the learned Judge concurred with the view taken by the Commissioner and dismissed the appeal.
14. In fact, the issue of jurisdiction under EC Act had also arisen before Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Waheed Khan & Anr. reported as I (1998) ACC 456 (DB). In the captioned case, the appellant-insurance company disputed territorial jurisdiction by urging that the claim petitions ought to have been filed in Maharashtra as the accident took place there and the Commissioner in Hyderabad did not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the claims. After considering rival submissions of the parties and observing that the EC Act is a socio-beneficiary legislation designed to reach out monetary compensation as a part of redeeming distress of the workmen or their dependents, the Court had held that entertainment of a claim application by a Commissioner in whose jurisdiction the accident did not occur may at best constitute an irregularity or illegality, but it does not take away the intrinsic competence to deal with the matter.
15. Recently, this Court as well in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder and Others reported as 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3020, after going through the entire conspectus of law on the subject, opined in favour of the territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioner despite the claimants not being residents of Delhi.
16. Coming back to the present case, the appellant has contested the jurisdiction of the learned Commissioner in deciding the claim petition by submitting that the accident in the present case had taken place in Palwal, Haryana, respondent No.6/employer is based in Palwal, Haryana and the claimants’ permanent address is also of Palwal, Haryana. On the other hand, the claimants have opposed the contention and argued that albeit permanent residents of Haryana, they are ordinarily resident in Delhi.
17. It is apparent that the appellant/Insurance Company has a regional office in Delhi. While filing the claim petition, the claimants had mentioned their present address as E-7C-632, A/2 First Floor, Land Mark Opposite Nirankari Bhawan Ratiya Marg, New Delhi-110062 and permanent address as V.P.O Meesa, Tehsil and District Palwal, Haryana. In view of the same and the judicial dicta noted above, the contention raised by the appellant with regard to territorial jurisdiction is meritless and liable to be rejected.
18. Insofar as the appellant’s contention regarding proving of employeremployee relationship is concerned, it is noteworthy that respondent No.6/employer had filed a written statement before the concerned Commissioner admitting the employer-employee relationship between himself and the deceased. Although the appellant has disputed the finding of the concerned Commissioner on the issue, the same being a question of fact need not be gone into at this stage [Refer: North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha reported as (2019) 11 SCC 514].
19. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Let the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, opposite Saraswati Mahila College, Bye Pass Road Palwal – 121102 release the amount deposited by the appellant to respondent Nos.[1] to 5/claimants within three weeks from today. Pending applications stand disposed of.
20. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the concerned Commissioner for information.
JUDGE JANUARY 31, 2023