FAO No.892 OF 1997 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA THE UNITED INDIA Vs GURMAIL KAUR AND ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi for the appellant Mr. Jaivir Singh, Advocate for Mr. Arvind Mittal, Advocate for respondent HARKESH MANUJA, J. CM No.11500-CII of 2000 Prayer made in this application is for early hearing of the main appeal which stands admitted vide order dated passed in the said application, the Adalat. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.10.2010, the matter was returned back to this Court. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and in view of prayer made in the application, the same is allowed. With th for the parties, the main appeal is taken Main case 1. The present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, Insurance Company 1997 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.11500 FAO No.892 Date of Decision: 03.0 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. GURMAIL KAUR AND ORS. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jaivir Singh, Advocate for Mr. Arvind Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. CII of 2000 Prayer made in this application is for early hearing of the main appeal admitted vide order dated 22.12.1997 passed in the said application, the appeal was referred to the Permanent Lok Adalat. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.10.2010, the matter was returned back to Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and in view of prayer made in the application, the same is allowed. With th the main appeal is taken up today The present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, "the 1923 Act"), has been preferred by the Insurance Company assailing the award dated IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.11500-CII of 2000 in/and 892 of 1997 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 INSURANCE CO.LTD. …Appellant …Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Prayer made in this application is for early hearing of the main appeal 22.12.1997. Vide order dated 28.08.2000 appeal was referred to the Permanent Lok Adalat. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.10.2010, the matter was returned back to Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and in view of prayer made in the application, the same is allowed. With the consent of learned counsel up today for disposal. The present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation has been preferred by the appellant assailing the award dated 14.11.1996, passed by the learned 1 Prayer made in this application is for early hearing of the main appeal Vide order dated 28.08.2000 appeal was referred to the Permanent Lok Adalat. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.10.2010, the matter was returned back to Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and in view of prayer e consent of learned counsel The present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation appellant- learned MOHMED ATIK 2026.09.11 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.892 OF 1997 (O&M) Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Ropar (for short ‘the Commissioner’) whereby compensation to the tune of penalty, and interest @ came to be awarded on account of accident dated 27.05.1988 with respondent No. 2. Brief instance of appellants/claimants before the for grant of compensation on account of death of during the course of his employment with respondent No. deceased was employed as a died on account of fall from the with respondent No. employee, however employment was denied Insurance Company on with it. 3. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the learned Commissioner held that the accident arose out of and during the course of employment. penalty was awarded by taking the monthly wages at Rs. interest @ 6% per annum to pay the penalty amount was Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal has been preferred. 1997 (O&M) Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Ropar (for short ‘the Commissioner’) whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.83172/ interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its payment came to be awarded on account of unfortunate demise of Manjit Singh accident dated 27.05.1988 arising out of and duri with respondent No.4. Briefly stating, an application under the 1923 Act, came to filed instance of appellants/claimants before the learned Commissioner, Ropar for grant of compensation on account of death of during the course of his employment with respondent No. was employed as a driver on Truck No.H on account of fall from the said Truck during the course of his employmen with respondent No.4. The employer admitted the relationship of employer and , however the factum of death arising out of and was denied, but sought to shift the liability upon respondent No.2 Insurance Company on the ground that the vehicle in question Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the learned Commissioner held that the accident arose out of and during the course . Consequently, compensation of Rs. was awarded by taking the monthly wages at Rs. 6% per annum from the date of application till its payment. to pay the penalty amount was fastened upon the appellant Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal has been preferred. Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Ropar (for short ‘the Commissioner’) /- along with an equal amount from the date of application till its payment unfortunate demise of Manjit Singh in an during the course of his employment an application under the 1923 Act, came to filed at the learned Commissioner, Ropar, praying for grant of compensation on account of death of Manjit Singh arising out of and during the course of his employment with respondent No.4. It was pleaded that the driver on Truck No.HIR-4435 and while on duty he during the course of his employmen The employer admitted the relationship of employer and arising out of and during the course of , but sought to shift the liability upon respondent No.2 vehicle in question was duly insured Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the learned Commissioner held that the accident arose out of and during the course Consequently, compensation of Rs.83,172/- plus Rs.83,172/- was awarded by taking the monthly wages at Rs.1,000/-, besides awarding from the date of application till its payment. The liability fastened upon the appellant-Insurance Company. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal has been preferred. 2 Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Ropar (for short ‘the Commissioner’), along with an equal amount as from the date of application till its payment, in an ng the course of his employment at the , praying arising out of and . It was pleaded that the and while on duty he during the course of his employment The employer admitted the relationship of employer and during the course of , but sought to shift the liability upon respondent No.2- was duly insured Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the learned Commissioner held that the accident arose out of and during the course - as besides awarding The liability Insurance Company. MOHMED ATIK 2026.09.11 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.892 OF 1997 (O&M) 4. The short ground raised on behalf of the appellant Company is that the penalty imposed by the learned Commissioner ought to have been fastened upon the employer, i.e. respondent No. 4, rather than upon the appellant-Insurance Company. It was, learned Commissioner be modified to the aforesaid extent. 5. On the other hand, learned No. 4 opposed the prayer made in the present appeal, submitting that the learned Commissioner had rightly appreciated the evidence available on record while assessing the compensation and had correctly fastened the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the penalty. learned Commissioner calls for no interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 7. At the Commissioner had imposed penalty at 50% or 100% of the compensation amount comparative chart of Para Nos.1 11. died on 27.5.1988 which fact has not been disputed by the respondents though the version put forth by the applicants and the respondents respondents ha anything Therefore, respondents are liable to pay the 1997 (O&M) The short ground raised on behalf of the appellant s that the penalty imposed by the learned Commissioner ought to have been fastened upon the employer, i.e. respondent No. 4, rather than upon the Insurance Company. It was, thus, prayed that the award passed by the learned Commissioner be modified to the aforesaid extent. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 opposed the prayer made in the present appeal, submitting that the learned Commissioner had rightly appreciated the evidence available on record while assessing the compensation and had correctly fastened the Insurance Company to pay the penalty. learned Commissioner calls for no interference. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper At the first instance, for deciding the dispute as to whether the learned Commissioner had imposed penalty at 50% or 100% of the compensation amount comparative chart of Para Nos.11 and 13 from the award is extracted hereunder: 11. In this case the deceased had died on 27.5.1988 which fact has not been disputed by the respondents though the version put forth by the applicants and the respondents is different. The respondents have not paid anything to the applicants so far. Therefore, certainly the respondents are liable to pay the 13 the applicants are entitled Rs.8317 from the respondents on account of death of Manjit Singh The applicants are entitled to recovery this amount with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the application till its payment. As the truck in question was lying insured with respondent No.2 as The short ground raised on behalf of the appellant-Insurance s that the penalty imposed by the learned Commissioner ought to have been fastened upon the employer, i.e. respondent No. 4, rather than upon the , prayed that the award passed by the learned Commissioner be modified to the aforesaid extent. counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 opposed the prayer made in the present appeal, submitting that the learned Commissioner had rightly appreciated the evidence available on record while assessing the compensation and had correctly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company to pay the penalty. Thus, the award passed by the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper the dispute as to whether the learned Commissioner had imposed penalty at 50% or 100% of the compensation amount and 13 from the award is extracted hereunder: 13. In view of the foregoing findings, the applicants are entitled to recover Rs.83172/- plus Rs.83172/- as penalty from the respondents on account of death of Manjit Singh The applicants are entitled to recovery this amount with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the application till its payment. As the truck in question was lying insured with respondent No.2 as 3 Insurance s that the penalty imposed by the learned Commissioner ought to have been fastened upon the employer, i.e. respondent No. 4, rather than upon the , prayed that the award passed by the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 opposed the prayer made in the present appeal, submitting that the learned Commissioner had rightly appreciated the evidence available on record while liability upon the Thus, the award passed by the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- the dispute as to whether the learned Commissioner had imposed penalty at 50% or 100% of the compensation amount, and 13 from the award is extracted hereunder:- . In view of the foregoing findings, to recover as penalty from the respondents on account of death of Manjit Singh The applicants are entitled to recovery this amount with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the application till its payment. As the truck in question was lying insured with respondent No.2 as MOHMED ATIK 2026.09.11 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.892 OF 1997 (O&M) penalty at 50% and interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the applicants. This issue is, therefore, decided accordingly. 8. Apparentl Commissioner in para No.11 went on to impose penal relief clause, as a result of inadvertent error, it was recorded that the penalty equivalent to the amount of compensation i.e. 100% is payable to the claimants. The said inadvertent error, thus needs to be corrected first. Accordingly, upon conjoint reading of recorded that the statutory penalty payable under Section 4 Act was 50% of the amount of compensation. Moreover, even as per statute, Section 4-A(iii)(b) of the 1923 penalty upon the employer on account of delay in deposit of the arrears of compensation, which 9. Further the appellant-Insurance Company that the amount of penalty is payable by the employer i.e. respondent No.4 in the present appeal, especially when there is no proof on record from the side of e penalty was got indemnified by the employer as against payment of premium. In 1997 (O&M) penalty at 50% and interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the applicants. This issue is, therefore, decided accordingly. per Insurance policy Ex. R the respondents are jointly and severally of the compensation amount, which is apportioned between the applicants as under: Gurmail Kaur Harvinder Singh Jasdeep Kaur 25% each Apparently while recording reasons and findings, the learned Commissioner in para No.11 went on to impose penal clause, as a result of inadvertent error, it was recorded that the penalty equivalent to the amount of compensation i.e. 100% is payable to the claimants. The said inadvertent error, thus needs to be corrected first. Accordingly, upon conjoint reading of para nos.11 and 13 of the award dated 14.11.1996, it is recorded that the statutory penalty payable under Section 4 Act was 50% of the amount of compensation. Moreover, even as per statute, A(iii)(b) of the 1923 Act, the Commissioner penalty upon the employer on account of delay in deposit of the arrears of , which can be 50% of the compensation. Further, this Court finds merit in the contentions raised on behalf of Insurance Company that the amount of penalty is payable by the employer i.e. respondent No.4 in the present appeal, especially when there is no proof on record from the side of employer that the liability towards statutory penalty was got indemnified by the employer as against payment of premium. In per Insurance policy Ex. R-2, so both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of the compensation amount, which is apportioned between the applicants as under:- Gurmail Kaur 50% Harvinder Singh Jasdeep Kaur 25% each y while recording reasons and findings, the learned Commissioner in para No.11 went on to impose penalty at 50%, whereas in the clause, as a result of inadvertent error, it was recorded that the penalty equivalent to the amount of compensation i.e. 100% is payable to the claimants. The said inadvertent error, thus needs to be corrected first. Accordingly, upon para nos.11 and 13 of the award dated 14.11.1996, it is recorded that the statutory penalty payable under Section 4-A(iii)(b) of the 1923 Act was 50% of the amount of compensation. Moreover, even as per statute, missioner is empowered to impose penalty upon the employer on account of delay in deposit of the arrears of can be 50% of the compensation. , this Court finds merit in the contentions raised on behalf of Insurance Company that the amount of penalty is payable by the employer i.e. respondent No.4 in the present appeal, especially when there is no mployer that the liability towards statutory penalty was got indemnified by the employer as against payment of premium. In 4 2, so both the respondents are jointly and liable to make the payment of the compensation amount, which is apportioned between the applicants as Jasdeep Kaur 25% each y while recording reasons and findings, the learned ty at 50%, whereas in the clause, as a result of inadvertent error, it was recorded that the penalty equivalent to the amount of compensation i.e. 100% is payable to the claimants. The said inadvertent error, thus needs to be corrected first. Accordingly, upon para nos.11 and 13 of the award dated 14.11.1996, it is A(iii)(b) of the 1923 Act was 50% of the amount of compensation. Moreover, even as per statute, to impose penalty upon the employer on account of delay in deposit of the arrears of , this Court finds merit in the contentions raised on behalf of Insurance Company that the amount of penalty is payable by the employer i.e. respondent No.4 in the present appeal, especially when there is no mployer that the liability towards statutory penalty was got indemnified by the employer as against payment of premium. In MOHMED ATIK 2026.09.11 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.892 OF 1997 (O&M) the present case, no such material has been brought on record from the side of respondent No.4. In such circumstances, the liability is fastened upon respondent No.4. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in others, (1997) 8 SCC 1 under the Policy would extend to the principal amount of compensation and interest payable therein, but not to the statutory penalty imposed upon the employer under Section 4 of the employer’s default and, therefore, remains the liability of the employer. 10. Resultantly, 14.11.1996 passed by the learned Commissioner, is modified to the extent that respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants are entitled to compensation amount upon respondent No.4. the appellant/Ins amount be released immediately in favour of respondent No.1 to 3/claimants along with interest payable thereupon. The remaining amount, if any appellant/Insurance Company, which sha of penalty paid to the claimants from respondent No.4/employer by way of execution only. 11. The of such penalty amount along with interest by an intimation in this regard be sent to this Court receipt of certified copy of this order. 1997 (O&M) the present case, no such material has been brought on record from the side of respondent No.4. In such circumstances, the liability is fastened upon respondent No.4. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg vs. Premi Devi and others, (1997) 8 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that the liability under the Policy would extend to the principal amount of compensation and interest payable therein, but not to the statutory penalty imposed upon the employer under Section 4-A(3)(b) of the 1923 Act. The penalty is a consequence yer’s default and, therefore, remains the liability of the employer. Resultantly, the present appeal is disposed of and passed by the learned Commissioner, is modified to the extent that respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants are entitled to amount and the liability to pay the amount of penalty is fastened upon respondent No.4. From the amount which stands deposited at the instance of the appellant/Insurance Company towards penalty, be released immediately in favour of respondent No.1 to 3/claimants along with interest payable thereupon. The remaining amount, if any appellant/Insurance Company, which shall be at liberty to seek recovery of amount of penalty paid to the claimants from respondent No.4/employer by way of he learned Commissioner at Ropar is directed to ensure the receipt of such penalty amount along with interest by respondent nos.1 to 3 an intimation in this regard be sent to this Court receipt of certified copy of this order. In case of default, the officer concerned shall the present case, no such material has been brought on record from the side of respondent No.4. In such circumstances, the liability to pay the amount of penalty is fastened upon respondent No.4. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Ved Prakash Garg vs. Premi Devi and , wherein it has been held that the liability of the insurer under the Policy would extend to the principal amount of compensation and interest payable therein, but not to the statutory penalty imposed upon the A(3)(b) of the 1923 Act. The penalty is a consequence yer’s default and, therefore, remains the liability of the employer. the present appeal is disposed of and the award dated passed by the learned Commissioner, is modified to the extent that respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants are entitled to amount of penalty at 50% of the and the liability to pay the amount of penalty is fastened amount which stands deposited at the instance of towards penalty, 50% of the compensation be released immediately in favour of respondent No.1 to 3/claimants along with interest payable thereupon. The remaining amount, if any be released to the ll be at liberty to seek recovery of amount of penalty paid to the claimants from respondent No.4/employer by way of learned Commissioner at Ropar is directed to ensure the receipt respondent nos.1 to 3/claimants and an intimation in this regard be sent to this Court within one month from the date of In case of default, the officer concerned shall 5 the present case, no such material has been brought on record from the side of to pay the amount of penalty is fastened upon respondent No.4. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the Ved Prakash Garg vs. Premi Devi and of the insurer under the Policy would extend to the principal amount of compensation and interest payable therein, but not to the statutory penalty imposed upon the A(3)(b) of the 1923 Act. The penalty is a consequence the award dated passed by the learned Commissioner, is modified to the extent that penalty at 50% of the and the liability to pay the amount of penalty is fastened amount which stands deposited at the instance of of the compensation be released immediately in favour of respondent No.1 to 3/claimants along be released to the ll be at liberty to seek recovery of amount of penalty paid to the claimants from respondent No.4/employer by way of learned Commissioner at Ropar is directed to ensure the receipt and within one month from the date of In case of default, the officer concerned shall MOHMED ATIK 2026.09.11 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.892 OF 1997 (O&M) be liable to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh fro The Registry is 20.11.2026 to confirm about the receipt of compliance report in the aforesaid context. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. September 03, 202 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 1997 (O&M) be liable to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh from his own pocket to the claimants. The Registry is also directed to list the present appeal in IOIN category on to confirm about the receipt of compliance report in the aforesaid Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No m his own pocket to the claimants. directed to list the present appeal in IOIN category on to confirm about the receipt of compliance report in the aforesaid Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE 6 m his own pocket to the claimants. directed to list the present appeal in IOIN category on to confirm about the receipt of compliance report in the aforesaid Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed MOHMED ATIK 2026.09.11 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document