Insurer liable for interest on compensation despite policy exclusions if terms and conditions are not produced.

The deceased, Mr. Paresh Kumar, was employed as a tractor driver with a monthly salary of ₹3,000/-.

On February 24, 2002, he drowned in a pond due to faulty railing construction while on duty.

The claimants filed a petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

The Ex-Officio Commissioner, Godhra, awarded ₹2,22,710/- with 12% interest and funeral expenses, holding the opponents jointly and severally liable.

The United India Insurance Company Limited (the insurer) challenged this award, contending that they were not the insurer of "Urja Engineers Private Limited" (joined later) and that their policy did not cover interest.

1. Whether the insurer can be held liable for compensation when the entity "Urja Engineers Private Limited" was substituted/joined as a party during the proceedings.

2. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay interest on the compensation amount if the policy allegedly excludes such liability.

3. Whether the appeal is maintainable given the quantum of the award and the nature of the questions raised.

The court applied Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, which restricts appeals to cases involving a "substantial question of law".

The principle of finality of interlocutory orders, where an order joining a party under the Code of Civil Procedure (Exh. 28) becomes binding if not challenged at the appropriate time.

The evidentiary requirement that specific policy exclusions (such as interest) must be proved by producing the terms and conditions before the trial forum.

The Court rejected the appellant's first contention regarding the misjoinder/substitution of "Urja Engineers Private Limited," noting that the order joining said party (dated 11.11.2012) was never challenged and had attained finality.

Regarding the exclusion of interest, the Court found the insurer’s argument "poor" because they failed to produce the actual terms and conditions of the insurance policy before the Commissioner to prove such an exclusion.

The Court observed that the compensation amount was relatively small (less than ₹5,00,000/-) and that the appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law, which is a mandatory prerequisite for an appeal under Section 30 of the Act.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and award of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner; the interim relief was vacated, and the Commissioner was directed to disburse the compensation and accrued interest to the original claimants.