suresh hegde (Deputy General manager - legal) 14 November 2011

Employees compensation act

I have problem in respect of an accident happened inside our factory premises. It is highly unfortunate that one of our officer had to breath his last when a tipper ran over him whiel he was discharging his duties. The legal heirs have been paid compensation works to be in line with Employees Compensation Act( paid by Insurer) and other good benifits. Now they are beforte Motor Accident Tribunal claiming huge amount as the accident happened involving motor. The vehicle involved was insured. Before MACT the insurer after a year and a month,taken the contention that they are unable to represent Grasim Industries in this case before MV Court as they have taken up a contention that Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as the accident took place within the premises of the employer while the employee was on duty, which is excluded from the purview of policy. They rely on sec.147(1) of M V Act.

We have been contending that though the accident took place inside the factory premises, the premises is not a " privete place" & its is "public place" falling under the definion of Public Place u/ sec.2(34) of M V Act. There couple of Judgments on this point.

can anybody throw light on this more partciularly with SC judgment? This would really help us.

Suresh Hegde.

Reply Follow

5 Replies

darshana sawant (associate consultant) 15 November 2011

Dear Mr Hegde

Once the employee has opted for compensation under employees compensation act, he is barred from claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles act, as per section 4 Sch.I . The ratio is set out in the judgement of National Insurance Co :Ltd v Hameed Ummarabba Yan umar byari 2003(98) FLR P 395

1 Like

suresh hegde (Deputy General manager - legal) 15 November 2011

Dear Mr. Sawant

Thank you so much for your comments. I would request you tell me sec,.4 & sch.-1 of which Act are you referring. I would also request you give alertnate jouranl where the case cited by you( 2003 (98) FLR P 395) is reported, as I am getting FLR from 2010.

One clarification I would like to give you, the legal heirs of the deceased have not opted for the benifits under E C Act. As a policy, all the employees are insured and any death takes place, the deceased heirs will be paid the compensation by insurer. Compensation was paid on the premise that he was on duty while he died and he was issured. The compensation paid works to be in line with E C Act.

Can you tell me whether Insurer's contention that the policy does not cover this accident is sustainable in view of sec. 147(1) of M V Act/

darshana sawant (associate consultant) 16 November 2011

dear mr hegde,

I came across a judgement New India Assurance Co Ltd. v. Smt Badami & Ors.2010 I CLR 257 (rajasthan HC) which has held that compensation from the tortfeasor under the Motor vehicles act can be claimed that compensation under WC act is there, because the respondents in both cases are different Moreover the insurance contracts are also different. Pls see if this is of any help

(Guest)

Sorry, you have to pay the amount on the following grounds:

1. Premises is public according to you which means your office and other premises plus machinery are public too.

2. Insurer must be charging some premium for a minimum amount which the insurer is bound to pay as well as you on account of your defective machinery for which you are solely liable. Even if the accident took place by chance, then there too its your fault as you should have made sure that such chances don't take place. Even if there 100 rulings of the Supreme Court, in this case SC will over rule all previous rulings. Instead of wasting Company money on protracted litigation you should give the expired person his due since the Supreme Court will come down on you very heavily. You can negotiate a reasonable settlement acceptable to all.

3. Insurance companies take premium but pay after taking kick backs