THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.797 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 05-11-2009 in W.C.No.122 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda. 2. Appellant herein is the Insurance Company (2nd respondent), 1st respondent herein is the applicant and the 2nd respondent herein is the Employer (1st respondent) before the trial Court. 3. The applicant filed the above case under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-for the personal injuries sustained by him during the course of employment under 2nd respondent herein. It is stated that the applicant was working as Electrician under 2nd respondent herein and while he was working in repairing of current pole No.84 at G.Chennaram Village, Kangal Mandal or Nalgonda district, on 06-12-2002, he got electrocuted and sustained injuries. Thereafter, he was shifted to Govt. Civil Hospital, Nalgonda. Subsequently, he took treatment in private hospitals. The applicant sustained permanent and partial disablement @ 65% due to the injuries caused in the accident during the course of employment. He was aged about 19 years and drawing wages of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.50/- per day as batta at the time of accident. Police also registered a case in Cr.No.12 of 2003. 2nd respondent herein as Employer and appellant herein as insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation with interest at 24% per annum. 4. The appellant herein filed counter denying the averments made by the applicant. It also denied the employment of the applicant with the employer, the wages drawn and age of the applicant at the time of occurrence and also denying its liability for payment of compensation to the applicant. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the point ‘whether the applicant is entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.?’ 6. During trial, on behalf of applicant, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were got marked. On behalf of the appellant (2nd respondent), R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was got marked. 7. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that respondents 1 and 2 therein are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the applicant and accordingly, directed them to deposit an amount of Rs.1,39,983/- as compensation by way of demand draft drawn on in any Nationalized Bank payable at Nalgonda in favour of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. 8. The substantial question of law raised in this appeal is whether the insurer is liable to pay compensation when the policy does not cover the risk of a person. 9. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant contended that Ex.B1-policy does not cover the risk of a skilled or unskilled worker like 1st respondent herein (applicant) and therefore, question of liability of the Insurance Company does not arise. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent herein (applicant) contended that the applicant is a skilled employee, that the policy covers the risk of a person who is drawing wages less than Rs.4,000/-, that admittedly, the 1st respondent herein (applicant) was drawing wages less than Rs.4,000/- and therefore, the policy covers the risk of the applicant and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The only point that has to be decided in this appeal is whether the insurer (appellant) is liable to pay compensation in terms of policy. Ex.B1 policy is not in dispute. As per Ex.B1 policy, when the premium of the employee is less than Rs.4,000/-, the policy covers the risk of such employee. The description of the employee is as to cover the risk as mentioned in Ex.B1 is ‘Electrical Engineers (not manufacturers)-work in gen. Stations.’ The estimated number of employees is 42 and estimated annual wages is Rs.7,14,950/-. Basing on the assessment made by the insurer, premium of Rs.15,300/- has been paid. There cannot be any dispute that liability of the insurer and insured is governed by the agreement between the parties. Therefore, both are bound by the terms and conditions stipulated under Ex.B1. Ex.B1 is applicable to the employees whose wages is less than Rs.4,000/-. Admittedly, the applicant was getting Rs.4,000/-. Though it is disbelieved by the trial Court without there being any evidence, at the same time, as seen from the policy, it only covers the risk of Electrical Engineers working in gen. stations. It does not cover the risk of other skilled or unskilled employees. Therefore, the question of liability of the Insurance Company does not arise in respect of skilled or unskilled employees. Basic premium to cover the risk of persons like the applicant had not been paid by the Employer. Therefore, insofar as making the appellant jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with the 2nd respondent herein (Employer) is set aside while confirming the order passed against the 2nd respondent herein (Employer). It is needless to observe that the appellant is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by it at the time of filing of the appeal. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 12-09-2011 Hsd