Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1063/2012

Sky Line Engineering Contracts - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance - Opp.Party(s)

29 May 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC. NO-1063/12

In the matter of:
M/S Sky Line Engineering Contracts (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.4, Ground Floor,

Kehar Singh Estate, Saidul Jab,

M.B. Road,

New Delhi-110030                            

Complainant

Vs

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

(Through Its Regional Manager)

Regional Office (Second)

10.  

Laxmi Nagar, District Centre,

•  

 

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

(Through Its General Manager)

Divisional Office,

IIIrd Floor, Arif Chamber-1,

Kapoorthla Complex,

Aliganj, Lucknow-226020

                                                                                                             Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                        DATE OF ADMISSION-21/03/2013

                                                                                        DATE OF ORDER         -16/09/2015

ORDER

SH. N.A.ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant company is involved in construction work on contract basis and it has taken workmen compensation policy from the respondent No.2 bearing No.420400/36/07/01/0000019 for their construction site at Today Hotel Okhla, New Delhi, which was valid from 20/11.2007 to 19/11/2008. The policy was further renewed for the period from 20/11/2008 to 19/11/2009. The fatal accident occurred at the site resulting in the workmen Sh. Surender Kumar death. An FIR No.461/2008 dated 22/10/2008 u/s 288/304A was registered at P.S. Okhla, Information was given to the respondent No.2 on 27/10/2008. On 04/11/2008 a letter was written to OP-1 by OP-2 for appointment of the surveyor. The complainant filed the claim with the relevant documents. The respondent received the notice on 21/04/2009 from the office of the Commissioner of workman’s compensation and the Asst. Labour Commissioner in respect of the filing of workman compensation claim WC 30/09 by Smt. Phula Devi, a wife of the deceased. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner Allahabad issued the Show Cause Notice regarding the compliance of order dated 31/09/2010. The order was never received by the complainant. The complainant written to OP-2 regarding the order of Workmen Compensation Commissioner who has granted compensation of Rs.4,30,560/- along with interest with effect from 22/10/2008 but that order has never been complied by the respondent. The complainant has prayed for the direction to the OP-1 & 2 to pay Rs.4,30,560/- with interest @ 8% from 22/09/2008  and for ensuring the compliance of the workmen compensation order and damages & compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

            OP-2 filed their reply where in they have taken the plea that the complainant is not a consumer and the matter is triabal in the Civil Court only. They have taken the plea that the information regarding the death of the workmen was not promptly given. The surveyor complained that the certain documents were not provided and the company lacked in providing the certain equipment to the worker as such the claim was found to be not payable.

            We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have perused the record.

            This fact is not in dispute that the workmen Sh. Surendra Kumar died at the site of the complainant on 22/10/2008. The FIR 461/2008 u/s 208/304-A has also not been disputed by the respondent. The only plea which the respondent has taken is with regard to delayed information and violation of condition No.3 of the policy which require the insured to take reasonable precaution to prevent the accident and for complying with all the statutory obligations. The FIR Annexure-C shows that accident took place at 5.00 pm on 22/10/2008 and the case was registered promptly at the same date. As per the allegation in the complaint, the information was given to the insurance company on 25/10/2008 vide letter dated 27/10/2008 and it was also served upon the respondent through courier service and the receipt has been filed on the record. In the present case, the complainant has lodged the Fir promptly without any delay. The investigation was started by the police. This is not disputed by the respondent that they have received information regarding the claim and incident. In these circumstances this cannot be said that there was delay in giving the information regarding the incident and death of the workmen. In these circumstances the plea of respondent that complainant has violated the conditions of the policy cannot be accepted. In so far as the question of violation of condition No.3 of the policy is concerned the burden lies upon the OP-2 that the respondent company has not taken the reasonable protection to prevent the accident. The complainant in their affidavit has alleged that the matter was adjudicated upon by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and they allowed the claim petition. The respondent have failed to deposit the amount, the complainant has deposit the amount of Rs.4,30,560/- with additional interest of Rs.1,72,224/-in compliance of the Court Order, to discharge the obligation of the respondent company. The amount was paid to the deceased workmen family. The question of deceased being employee of complainant and covered by the policy have already been decided before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, as such we need not to go into this question. The workmen were covered by the policy. It is the obligation in that policy of the workmen that respondent shall reimburse, the claim that complainant had paid in compliance of the workmen Compensation Commissioner order. The respondent have taken the plea that the complainant is not the consumer as it is commercial Contractor Company, as such the matter is triable before the Civil Court. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the respondent. The complainant has taken the policy cover for its workmen from any mishap and this policy was not purchased by the company for any business purposes or to earns any money out of it. In these circumstances the policy in question has nothing to do with the nature of the work in which the complainant company is involved. This policy was for the benefit of the employees. The deceased Sh. Surender Kumar was covered by this policy. The plea taken by the respondent as such is not tenable and devoid of any merit. The respondent company is under obligation to reimbursement the complainant who has discharged the liability which was other wise to be discharged by the respondent company. The amount which has been deposit by the complainant before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner is liable to be recovered from the respondents. The complainant has filed on record the proof of the payment of Rs.4,32,560/- through cheque No.868999 dated 09/10/2013 of Punjab National Bank, Gitanjali Enclave, New Delhi and the cheque of Rs.1,72,124/- of the same Bank and both the cheques has been deposited with the Workmen Compensation Commissioner Allahabad.

            We allow this complaint. The respondents are directed to pay to the complainant total sum of RS.4,30,560/- and Rs.1,72,224/- with 9% interest thereon from 09/10/2013 till it is finally paid. We further award compensation for Rs.30,000/- to the complainant on account of harassment, mental pain and agony and this shall also include the cost of litigation. If this amount not paid within 45 days complainant shall be entitled for 9% on this amount also.

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.

 

SUBHASH GUPTA                               POONAM MALHOTRA                                   N.A.ZAIDI

   MEMBER                                                   MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT