Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 919 (JHR)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sugia Devi

2010-09-21

D.N.PATEL, SUSHIL HARKAULI

body2010
JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company. The workman who was an employee of another employer, was requisitioned for election duty by the Government. During the period of his deployment on election duty, the workman went for a bath in a nearby pond and drowned. 2. The Appellant-Insurance Company along with three other Insurance Companies had insured all workmen deployed by the Government for election duty. During such deployment period, the liability of the insurance was to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- in case of accidental death of a civilian employee. The workman was a civilian employee. 3. The claim has been decreed under the Workmen Compensation Act and the liability has been fastened upon the Appellant-Company. 4. The Appellant-Company has resisted the liability to pay the awarded amount, on the grounds, which are dealt with below one by one: (i) Company says that at the time of accident, the workman was actually not performing election duty. The clause in the policy says, to our mind, that the workmen deployed for election duty will be covered against personal accident during the period of such deployment. There is nothing in the policy to show that the liability of the insurance was limited to a case of accident arising during the actual performance of election related work and therefore, the above contention fails. (ii) The Insurance Company says that arrangement was already there for bathing inside the campus and therefore, the workman should not have gone to the pond. In view of what has been stated above regarding the insurance cover against an accident, this plea is wholly irrelevant. (iii) According to the Insurance Company, the policy became effective from the noon of 9th February, 2000. The learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon a statement of one of the witnesses who says that the workman went for bath in the morning and did not return. This statement does not establish the time of death directly or substantially. The only evidence which we have regarding time of death is the postmortem report. The learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon a statement of one of the witnesses who says that the workman went for bath in the morning and did not return. This statement does not establish the time of death directly or substantially. The only evidence which we have regarding time of death is the postmortem report. The postmortem examination was conducted next day at about 10.00 a.m. The time of death estimated according to the postmortem report could well be after the noon time of 9th February, 2000 and, therefore, it cannot be said that at the time of accident/death, the insurance policy had not come into force or had not become effective. (iv) It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that liability of the Appellant-Company was limited to 28%. The shares of the companies in our opinion is with respect to the shares of the companies in the premium, and it does not necessarily mean that the liability of the insurance company in respect of the compensation awarded would be limited to that extent qua the claimants. In absence of anything to the contrary, the liability of all the Insurance companies would be deemed to be joint and several. In the circumstances, the Appellant-Insurance Company cannot avoid liability so far as the claimants are concerned and therefore, leaving it open to the Appellant-Company, to sort it out with the co-shares of the insurance liability, we do not find this to be a good ground for the Appellant to avoid the liability. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-company relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malikarjuna G. Hiremath vs. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (2009) 13 SCC 405 , with regard to the notional extension of premises and causal connection. The decision is wholly irrelevant because as mentioned above death in this case of accident were covered and because there is no exclusion to the extent of accidents arising out of election related work only. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Deepa Devi and Others, AIR 2007 SCW 7882 with regard to the liability of the owner of the vehicle. 7. These case laws will apply depending upon the facts and the terms of the policy. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Deepa Devi and Others, AIR 2007 SCW 7882 with regard to the liability of the owner of the vehicle. 7. These case laws will apply depending upon the facts and the terms of the policy. The terms of the policy in the facts of the case before Supreme Court were not similar to the facts and the terms of the policy before us. This decision is therefore also irrelevant. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned award. This appeal is accordingly, dismissed.