IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4356 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KRISHNAMOOTHAN, S/O.GANAPATHY MOOTHAN, 30/328, GIRINIVAS, MOOTHANTHARA, VADAKKANTHARA P.O., PALAKKAD-678012. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN SRI.G.GIREESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SMT.SARADA, W/O.LATE BALAN, RESIDING AT ATTASSERY P.O., PALAKKAD-679 513. 2. MINOR SALINI, D/O.LATE (BALAN RESIDING AT ATTASSERY P.O.,PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER-679513. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, THODUPUZHA BRANCH, THODUPUZHA-685584. 4. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD-678 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4356 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the first opposite party in W.C.C.No.287 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. By Ext.P3 order passed on 16.8.2010, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation directed the third respondent herein, viz., the insurer to deposit the sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation. The petitioner was directed to deposit the sum of Rs.16,279/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 16.12.2001 to the date of deposit. Later, the petitioner filed an application before the Court of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation contending that the payment of Rs.50,000/- already made to the worker under the terms of a policy taken in the name of the employee should have been deducted while awarding the compensation. By Ext.P5 letter dated 17.1.2011, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Palakkad who is also the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation informed the petitioner that such a request cannot be considered. The review petition was accordingly rejected. Exts.P3 and P5 are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. It is now well settled by a series of decisions of the W.P.(C) No.4356 of 2011 2 Apex Court and this Court that any benefit which the estate of the deceased had received under a Life Insurance Policy cannot be reckoned for the purpose of determining the compensation payable to the estate of the deceased as a result of the death of the deceased. In my opinion, the same principle should apply to the award of compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act also. I, therefore, find no merit to the challenge to Exts.P3 and P5 orders. Further, if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, his remedy is to file an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, after depositing the amount. The petitioner has thus got an alternate remedy where he can put forward his contentions. In such circumstances, I find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.