SHEKON ENTERPRISES Vs. NARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this appeal lies in a very narrow compass and, therefore, the relevant facts relating to it only need be stated here.

(2.) THE respondent Naru was an employee of M/s Shekon Enterprises, who were the contractors for labour for M/s Udaipur Phosphate and Fertilzer, Khemli which was represented by Manubhai. During the course of employment, Naru had a fall. He, therefore, filed a claim for Rs. 48,000/ -under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the M/s Udaipur Phosphate and Fertilizer, Khemli and Shri Manubhai. He also impleaded Khemraj as a contractor. Shri Prakash Shah alleged in his reply that the employees were insured with the New India Insurance Company and prayed that the said Insurance Company may also be impleaded. M/s Udaipur Phosphate and Fertilizer, Khemli denied that Naru was their employee but alleged that M/s Shekon Enterprises were their contractors. Later, Shekon Enterprises also moved an application for being impleaded. That application was also allowed. The Insurance Company in its reply alleged that M/s Shekon Enterprises did not give any notice of this incident and they also did not comply with the conditions No. 1, 3 and 4 of the Insurance Policy and did not take necessary precautions and steps to prevent the accident and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable. M/s Shekon Enterprises of course admitted that the claimant Naru was their employee on Rs. 9/ - per day They also admitted that he had met the accident during the course of employment. They, however, urged that the claim was excessive. After framing the necessary issues and taking the evidence of the parties, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner gave an award of Rs. 33,880/ - in all i.e. Rs. 21,160.00/ - compensation; Rs. 10,080/ - penalty; Rs. 2540.00/ - interest and Rs. 100.00 costs against the non -petitioner except Insurance Company. He was of the opinion that it has not been established that the employee had taken precautions and steps to prevent the accident and had given notice to the Insurance Company despite objection raised by the Insurance Company in its reply. Being aggrieved of this M/s Shekon Enterprises has come up in appeal.

(3.) TWO contentions have been raised before me. The first contention is that the Insurance Company has wrongly been exonerated and the second is that the award is excessive. The claimant Naru has supported the award whereas, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the first contention but supported the second one.