IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MFA.No. 66 of 2009(G) -------------------- WCC.83/2004 of WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, TVM. .................... APPELLANT(S)2ND OPPOSITE PARTY: ----------------------------------------------- THE MANAGER, HARRISONS MALAYALAM LIMITED (HML), NGINEERING DEPARTMENT, 24/1624, BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI -3. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANTS 2 TO 5 & OPP. PARTIES 1 & 3: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. VIJAYAKUMARI, W/O.LATE DIVAKARAN, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KRISHNAPURAM MANGOTTUKONAM, KURUVILLA, KATTAYIKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEEBU, AGED 16 YEARS, S/O. LATE DIVAKARAN,DO..DO... 3. DEEBA, AGED 14 YEARS,(MINOR) D/O.LATE DIVAKARAN, DO...DO..... 4. SARADA, M/O. LATE DIVAKARAN, DO....DO..... 5. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA VIDEO PARK, NEAR SAINIK SCHOOL, CHANTHAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI. RAM MOHAN.G FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. RAJAN P. KALIYATH FOR R6 SRI.G.P.SHINOD FOR R1-3 SRI.MANU V. FOR R1-3 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A. NO. 66 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred by the employer in W.C.C. 83/04 whereby the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner directed the insurance company to pay the original of the amount and by virtue of the exclusion clause exonerated the insurance company from paying interest and directed the employer to pay that amount. Now this decision is well settled that when there is an exclusion clause in the policy with the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay interest. Therefore in the light of the settled proposition of law regarding the liability of the employer to pay interest nothing survives for consideration and therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.F.A.. 66 OF 2009 -:2:- Needless to say that the legal representatives of the deceased workman are entitled to withdraw the amount that is in deposit and realise the further amount from the employer. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-