Skip to main content

Insurance firm to pay compensation to injured worker


Brushing aside technical objections raised by an insurance company, the Madras high court has asked it to pay compensation to a worker injured while on duty.

In 2005, D Sivasankar, a helper earning a monthly salary of 3,650, was shifting a granite stone weighing 50kg when he lost balance. The stone fell on his hand, injuring him grievously. He was administered 17 stitches at a private hospital and later shifted to a government hospital. Claiming he suffered a permanent disability of 15% and lost 17% of his earning capacity, he sought compensation.

The owner of the firm said the "injuries were superficial" and Sivasankar had not produced any documents to prove loss in his employment opportunities. Further, he was covered by a group insurance policy of Oriental Insurance. Sivasankar filed an insurance claim, but Oriental rejected it.

Sivasankar filed a complaint before the commissioner for workmen's compensation seeking a compensation of 1.5 lakh. Partly allowing the claim, the deputy commissioner of labour directed the insurance company to pay 53,394 to Sivasankar within 30 days.

Oriental Insurance moved the high court, saying since it was a group personal accident policy, it did not cover a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Unless the policy specifically covered a claim under the Workmen's Compensation act, no direction could be issued for making the payment, it said. Counsel for Sivasankar said as the insurance policy was valid at the time of injury, there was no illegality in the order.

In a recent order, Justice R Mahadevan said an insurer could be directed to pay compensation even if it was not covered under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. As Sivasankar was injured during employment, he was correct in approaching the commissioner. "The concept of insurance is to indemnify the insured against the claims," said the court.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Insurance-firm-to-pay-compensation-to-injured-worker/articleshow/32683121.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more