Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO 10/2023
Date of Decision: 16.01.2023 IN THE MATTER OF:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sankar N Sinha, Advocate
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 1747/2023 (Delay)
1. By way of present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC, the appellant seeks condonation of delay of 16days in filing the appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 16 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.
3. The application stands disposed of. FAO 10/2023 and CM APPL. 1746/2023 (Stay)
1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘EC Act’), the appellant (respondent No. 2 below) seeks setting aside of order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation(North-West District) in Case No.ECD/82/NW/2021/4147- 49, whereby the claim petition filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1- 6/claimants was allowed and the appellant directed to deposit compensation amount of Rs.12,93,900/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of accident i.e., 08.06.2021 till its realization, funeral expenses of Rs.5,000/- and the penalty amount of Rs.2,58,780/- within thirty days of passing of the order.
2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of the present appeal, are that the claimants (being the wife, children and mother of the deceased) had filed a claim petition under Sections 3 and 10 of the EC Act, stating that deceased/Sh. Jitender Yadav aged 44 years was working as a driver with respondent No.7 and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.18,000/-since the year 2016. He used to drive a Light Goods Carrier Vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1LX-1668 owned by respondent No.7, which was duly insured with the appellant vide policy No.2227013120P102893354(valid from 28.06.2020 to 27.06.2021). It was claimed that on 08.06.2021, while the deceased was driving under the employment of respondent No.7, the vehicle was hit on the rear side by some unknown vehicle at about 5:00 a.m., which could not be traced/identified. The accident occurred at Eastern Peripheral Expressway above Ratol underpass at Baghpat within the jurisdiction of P.S. Khekra, Bhagpat, Uttar Pradesh. An FIR bearing No.236/2021under Sections 279/304-A/427 IPC was registered at Police Station Khekra, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh on 08.06.2021.
3. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has disputed the jurisdiction of the learned Commissioner in dealing with the claim petition, by contending that neither the claimants were residents of Delhi nor the accident occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of Courts in Delhi. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Commissioner erred in imposing a penalty @ 20% of the compensation amount. In this regard, he submitted that as the compensation amount was deposited on 29.09.2022 i.e., within one month of the date of passing of the impugned order, no penalty under Section 4-A(3) of the EC Act could have been imposed upon the appellant. Besides these contentions, no other contention has been raised on behalf of the appellant.
4. There is no gainsaying that labour statutes such as the EC Act constitute ‘beneficial legislation for the welfare of workmen 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.”
5. Insofar as the appellant’s first contention relating to territorial jurisdiction of the learned Commissioner is concerned, I deem it apposite to refer to Section 21 of the EC Act, which reads as under:-
6. With regard to territorial jurisdiction in accident claims, reference is profitably made 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.
7. Relevant excerpt from the decision in Malati Sardar (Supra) is reproduced hereunder:-
8. 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 a Co-ordinate Bench of 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.
9. At this stage, reference may be made to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under:-
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. It is noted that 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Coming back to the present case, it is observed that though the accident had occurred in Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh,the claim petition came to be filed in Delhi. The appellant/Insurance Company has a regional office in Delhi. In view of the judicial dicta noted above, the contention raised by the appellant with regard to territorial jurisdiction is found to be meritless and is rejected.
16. Likewise, the contention apropos imposition of penalty ex facie appears to be misplaced, as the penalty amount was imposed considering that the appellant failed to pay provisional amount towards compensation within one month of the incident despite due communication. In the opinion of this Court, learned counsel for the appellant has totally misinterpreted the provision to understand that the period of one month is reckoned from the date of passing of the impugned order and not from the date of the accident.
17. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner. The appeal is dismissed alongwith the pending application. Let the concerned Commissioner release the amount deposited by the appellant to respondent Nos. 1-6/claimants forthwith, if not already done.
18. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the concerned Commissioner for information.
JUDGE JANUARY 16, 2023