Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/16/117

Ajay Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Binod Kumar Singh

15 Dec 2022

ORDER

                District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-13-10-2016

Date of final hearing-15-12-2022

 Date of Order-15-12-2022

Case No. 117/2016

     Ajay Kumar Sharma S/o Sri Lakshman Sharma

    Proprietor of M/s A.N. Enterprises, R/o- Udalbani, Tola,

    Modidih, P.O.- Chandra, P.S.- Siyaljori, District- Bokaro

Vs.

    Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited

    Chas Branch, Bye Pass Road, Chas, Bokaro, Jharkhand

                             Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

        Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Member

          

      PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Judgment-

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct the O.P. National Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay Rs. 5,75,676/- with 18% interest which has already been paid to the worker  on account of permanent disablement during work at work place and further to direct to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
2.  Case of the complainant in short is that he is a contractor having contract business during which he is deploying workers for which he got his business insured with O.P. with insurance policy No. 1704014114860000023 valid from 20.05.2014 to 19.05.2015  under Employees Compensation Insurance Policy. Further case is that on 17.12.2014 during course of deployment at Electro Steel Ltd. Siyaljory, Bokaro his employee namely Bhakti Pad Mahtha got injured resulting permanent disablement, whose right hand was imputed. Further case is that as per provision of Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act. 1923 complainant was liable to pay compensation to his worker for which Misc. E.C. (R.A.) Case No. 2 /2015 was instituted before the competent authority in which complainant paid Rs. 5,75,676/- to the Employee on 06.05.2015 through cheque on compromise between the parties. Thereafter, complainant requested the O.P. to pay said amount but O.P. offered only Rs. 2,86,598/- which was not acceptable hence this case has been filed after service of legal notice.
3.  O.P. has filed W.S. and challenged the claim of the complainant on the ground that this Commission is having no jurisdiction to entertain this case on the ground that complainant is not a consumer rather he is a business man. Further ground for challenge is that as per insurance policy only 5 employees were covered at a time but work was being executed by deployment of much more workers hence Insurance co. has offered claim payment on pro-rata basis. Further reply is that during compensation proceeding before P.O. Labour Court, Bokaro cum Employees Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro this O.P. was not made party to the proceeding. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the case.
4.  Now point for consideration is whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed or not?
5.  Complainant has produced photo copy of papers which are numbered as page No. 1 to 11 and these papers are photo copy of Insurance policy which is not in dispute, page No. 2 is photo copy of application dt. 27.05.2015 written to P.O. Labour Court, Bokaro it is also not in dispute. Page No. 3 is photo copy of memorandum of agreement, page No. 4 is calculation sheet, page No.5 is photo copy of the cheque through which payment has been made, page No. 6 is photo copy of report of accident, page No. 7 is photo copy of the order sheet dt. 17.06.2015 passed by the P.O. Labour Court, page No. 8 is photo copy of letter dt. 09.03.2016 issued by O.P. in favour of the complainant and page No. 9, 10 and 11  are photo copy of legal notice and postal receipt respectively. Except above mentioned documentary evidence no other evidence has been produced by the complainant.
6.  On behalf of the O.P. photo copy of register of wages of the complainant company for the month of July 2014 to Dec. 2014 has been filed to show that during all period more than 2o workers have worked at the work place of the complainant company which is violative of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Photo copy of terms and conditions of the insurance policy has also been filed by the O.P. and at para 9 of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy it has been mentioned that “ Average-Notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove. a) If  the number of Employees (whether on duty or otherwise) employed by the Insured on the date of accident is higher than the number covered under this Policy, the Company shall indemnify insured’s liability arising out of such accident, only in such proportion that the number of Employees covered bears to the Employees found employed on the date of accident”.
7.  On careful perusal of insurance policy it appears that only 5 persons are being covered by it but on the day of occurrence of accident i.e. on 17.12.2014 more persons were found engaged in work of the complainant as it is apparent from the photo copy of register of wages of the complainant company and filed by the O.P. Therefore, as per terms of the policy O.P. was entitled to reduce the compensation proportionally, accordingly O.P. has decided to pay only Rs. 2,86,598/- which is in conformity of the insurance policy. On perusal of page 2,3,4,6,&7 of the annexures of the complaint petition  it is apparent that before the Labour Court O.P. was not impleaded as party to the case and said case has been decided on the basis of compromise arrived between the worker and complainant. There is no evidence on record to show that the complainant was running that very business only to earn for his livelihood. Hence it is apparent that as per definition of the Consumer, complainant  has not proved that he comes within purview of  consumer.
8.  In light of above discussion we are of the view that complainant has not proved its case for grant of relief as prayed rather the calculation made by the O.P. is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. Accordingly above point is being decided against the complainant.
9. In the result this case is dismissed on merit on contest. Parties shall bear their own costs.

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

                                                                                     

         

    (B.P.L Das)

   Sr. Member