Judgment:
(Sri K. Satyanand, Honble Member).
This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant assailing the order of the District Forum dismissing its complaint.
The complainant , a Private Limited company, claims to be the sub contractor of the original contractor by name K.V.Mohan Rao from whom this complainant secured a contract work relating to Metropolitan Transport Project (Railways)âPH II Tirumala Velachevi- Kotturpuram elevated structure etc. It is claimed that by virtue of his status of being a sub contractor, he would step into the shoes of the main contractor, K.V.Mohana Rao, for dealing with the transactions relating to the work in question. The complainant claimed to have obtained several insurance policies to cover the risk in respect of 12 skilled employees, 15 unskilled employees and 8 more skilled employees working under the control of this complainant being the sub contractor. He claimed to have taken those policies initially in the name of K.V.Mohana Rao for the period from 13-5-2003 to 10-11-2003 and 11-11-2000 to 10-2-2004. He claimed to have issued cheques towards the premium etc., but the insurance company/opposite party issued policy in the name of the complainant instead of K.V.Mohana Rao. The administrative officer of the complainant appeared to have raised this issue before the agent of the opposite party obviously for rectification. But the opposite party did not take any necessary action.
While things stood thus, on 1-3-2004 one Mahadev Biswas met with fatal accident at the work spot in Chennai. As a consequence, he succumbed to the injuries on 15-3-2004. The said fatal accident came to be reported to the Police and a FIR was also registered. On 21-5-2004 a report was sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tenampet, regarding the fatal accident of one of the skilled workers, by name Mahadev Biswas. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai awarded compensation amount of Rs.4,19,840/- to the said deceased employee and directed the remittance of the said amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. It is submitted that on 14-7-2004 the complainant claimed to have deposited the said amount in favour of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. Immediately thereafter the complainant claimed to have intimated the same to the opposite party making the claim in question. The opposite party by its letter dated 26-3-2004 directed the complainant to approach the Deputy Commissioner of Labour for settlement of the claim under Workmen Compensation Act and that subsequently the opposite party would reimburse the above said amount after production of the settlement copy of the award amount. The opposite party also advised the complainant to submit in the meanwhile the claim form duly filled in and signed by the competent authority along with the supportive documents. In pursuance thereof, the complainant claimed to have submitted the claim form with all relevant documents duly filled in. It is further submitted that he maintained muster roll of the workmen showing the name of the deceased, however, in the name of the original contractor, K.V.Mohana Rao Engineer and Special Class Contractor. The said muster roll was issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. The opposite party directed the complainant to produce muster roll with attesting stamp of the sub contractor namely SVS Projects Private Limited. The complainant claimed to have complied with the same. Ultimately by a letter dated 31-12-2004, the opposite party intimated to the complainant stating that the subject claim was closed as no claim and further stating that the deceased person was listed in the muster roll of M/s.K.V.Mohana Rao and company and hence the complainant did not have any insurable interest over the deceased workmen. According to the complainant this repudiation was not valid. The complainant cited the overtacts of the opposite party in respect of other policies treating him as the sub contractor of K.V.Mohana Rao and therefore was wrong in treating the deceased as not its employee but the employee of K.V.Mohana Rao as it is contended that the complainant stepped into the shoes of the original contractor. It is how the present claim is sought to be enforced in favour of the complainant against the opposite party
The opposite party remained absent.
In support of its case, the complainant filed affidavit and relied upon documents marked as Exs.A1 to A11.
On a consideration of the evidence of no other than the complainant itself, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to show that the deceased was its employee and on the other hand it was clear that he was on the muster roll of M/s.K.V.Mohana Rao company and as a result the complainant failed to prove his insurable interest over the deceased workman and further that there was any deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed the present appeal reiterating that the District Forum ought to have accorded itthe status of the sub contractor of K.V.Mohana Rao and allowed it to step into the shoes of K.V.Mohana Rao for all practical purposes including to own up the deceased person as its workmen and not of K.V.Mohan Rao and Co., and allowed the claim holding that the complainant had insurable interest in respect of the risk to the deceased workmen.
Heard both sides.
The point for consideration is
1) whether the complainant could successfully prove that the deceased workman by name Mahadev was an employee of the complainant at the time of the accident in question affording the complainant insurable interest in respect of the death of the said workman by virtue of the insurance policy in force in its name.?
2. Whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?
It is crystal clear from the pleadings apart from documents that while the deceased was in the muster roll maintained by K.V.Mohan Rao, the insurance policy sought to be enforced marked as Ex.A2, is in the name of the complainant. Now the complainant seeks to link up these two irreconcilable facts to substantiate his claim by resorting to a contrivance that an employee of his original contractor, K.V.Mohan Rao and Co., is as much an employee of the complainant as well by virtue of the sub contract in the deal. This is simply absurd. The insurance company asserted in its repudiation letter, marked as Ex.A1, that the claim was untenable on this ground. There was no denying the fact that the deceased workman was in the muster rolls maintained by K.V.Mohan Rao and co., it should be remembered that while K.V.Mohan Rao and Co. is one entity, the complainant, S.V.S.Projects is another entity. These are two distinct juristic persons. Just because, the complainant happened to be the sub contractor of K.V.Mohana Rao and Co., the complainant cannot appropriate to itself the employees of K.V.Mohan Rao and Co. as its own employees and thereby claim to reap the benefits accruing on the basis of the death of the workmen. Just because the Deputy Commissioner of Labour had issued the letter Ex.A4 calling upon the complainant to deposit the amount that was payable to the L.Rs. of the workman, it would not automatically endorse or accord recognition to an absurd proposition of a sub contractor stepping into the shoes of the main contractor for the purposes of appropriating the laters employees as his own for the purposes of drawing insurance benefits. The fact remains that Ex.A4 came to be issued obviously as detailed in the complaint itself in respect to the letter of intimation by the complainant himself reporting the death of Sri Mahadev Biswas. So it is the complainant that misled the Deputy Commissioner of Labor to fall in that grove and in fact the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was right in fixing up the liability in the light of the letter volunteered by the complainant. It is the most natural way of doing things but the complainant cannot take advantage of his own wrong . Likewise the correspondence from the insurance company on an intimation about the claim did not also create any vested rights in favour of the complainant as in Ex.A6. On the other hand, it is Ex.A8 that clearly shows that K.V.Mohan Rao and Co. itself sent an intimation to the Deputy Labour Commissioner in which it referred to Mahadev Biswas as its employee and there was no whisper in Ex.A8 suggesting that the said K.V.Mohan Rao had made over the said worker as the employee of the complainant. Even Ex.A9 also shows Mahadev Biswas being the employee of K.V.Mohan Rao. This device of âstepping into the shoes is unknown to law. Though the complainant bragged that he had shelled down the money, Ex.A10 clearly shows the certificate of deposit having been issued in the name of K.V.Mohana Rao only. So the plea of the complainant to claim the benefits under the shelter of K.V.Mohan Rao is simply preposterous as rightly observed by the District Forum. In other words, he clearly failed to show that Mahadev Biswas was ever his employee in order to claim benefits on the foot of his death. For the reasons stated above, we do not see any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs in a sum of Rs.2,000/-.