Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Angum Ongbi Khomtonbi Devi and Another

N.C. Jain, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the order levying penalty of Rs. 30,000/- upon the Insurance Company. The facts of the case are that in a claim petition u/s 10 of the Workmen''s Competition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), having been filed by the widow of the deceased Angom Devendra Singh, the Commissioner passed an award in the sum of Rs. 82,380/- on 4.7.95. It was stipulated in the award that it was only the Insurance Company which was liable to make the payment and that to before 3.8.95. The Appellant, Insurance Company having not made the payment within the stipulated time, the widow of the deceased and no other option left but to approach the Commissioner again complaining of non-deposit of the amount The Commissioner issued notice to the Appellant which has been attached with the appeal as Annexure-A/2 asking it to appear on 27.9.95 to show-cause as to why the penalty should not be recovered u/s 4-A(3) and 31 of the Act. The Insurance Company did file objection petition but the ld. Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- by virtue of the order passed on 13th October, 1995 which read as under:

The Opposite Party No. 2 has not yet deposited the amount of compensation inspite of the time given under the orders dated 27.9.95. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only shall be recovered, from the Opposite Party No. 2 by way of penalty under Sub-section (3) of the Section 4-A of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 and the Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to deposit the same amount together with the amount of compensation.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant has strenuously argued that the Appellant being an Insurance Company is not liable to pay the penal amount and that such a liability should be imposed upon the Principal employer only. The learned Counsel was at pains to refer to the volumnious case law including Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi and others, in the case of Vyed Prakash Ghar v. Premi Devi. The argument in my considered view is devoid of any merit. In the present case, the Principal employer was never held jointly responsible to satisfy the award. On the other hand, the award was passed only against the Insurance Company and not against the Principal employer and in view thereof, the ratio of law as has been laid down by the Apex Court in Vyed Prakash Ghar case (Supra) is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. If the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is to be accepted this Court would be accepting too much from the Principal employer. Once the Principal employer was never held liable to pay any amount whatsoever, it is not understandable as to how he can be held liable for payment of penal amount. In other words, this Court would be imposing a penalty for non-compliance of the award which was never passed against the Principal employer. The argument to say the least is breft of any merit and is to be rejected at the threshold.

Having found no merit in the appeal the same is hereby dismissed. On the asking of the Court the counsel for the Appellant was not in a position to state whether the penal amount has been paid or not. If the amount has remained unpaid uptill now, the Commissioner can put any further penalty or interest on account of non-payment of penal amount, he would be at liberty to do so.

With these observations, the appeal is dismissed.