[381] Oriental Ins Gurvinder K Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] passed the f IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA FAO-760 Date of De ntal Insurance Company Limited Versus inder Kaur and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA None for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) While issuing notice of moti d the following order:- “CM 1559 CII of 2020 Prayer in this application filing the appeal. Heard. In view of averments mad affidavit and arguments advanc delay of 30 days in filing the app Main case Challenge in the present award dated 10.09.2019 pas Employee's Compensation Act, 1 Counsel for the appellant on two counts. It is argued th Rajasthan and his income has be on the basis of minimum wage Rajasthan for a skilled worker w T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 760-2020 (O&M) of Decision : 05.03.2026 …Appellant ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN for respondent Nos.1 to 4. f motion on 20.01.2020, this Court tion is for condoning delay of 30 days made in the application supported by a vanced, the application is allowed an appeal stands condoned. sent appeal has been directed again passed by the Commissioner und ct, 1923. llant has challenged the award primari d that the deceased was a resident as been assessed at Rs.8,000/- per mon age but minimum wage in the State er was approximately Rs.6,000/- per Court ays in by an d and gainst under marily ent of month tate of RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.07 13:25 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-760-2020 (O&M) -2- month. Another submission made by counsel is that the insurance company has also been fastened with liability to pay penalty and interest thereon. The deceased was driver of Truck No. RJ 02-GB-3878 of respondent No. 1 therein and occurrence took place on 17.03.2018. In the given circumstances, I do not find any reason to intervene in assessment of income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month. Counsel for the appellant would pray that respondent No. 5 may be treated as contesting respondent in place of pro forma. He would also state that he will file amended memorandum of parties in the Registry. Ordered accordingly. Notice of motion to respondent No. 5 to the limited extent of liability of insurance company to pay penalty and interest thereon for 08.05.2020. ” [2] After hearing counsel for the respondents, the appeal is disposed off with the clarification that the liability to pay the interest has to be borne by the Insurance Company i.e. the appellant whereas the penalty and interest thereon has to be paid by the employer and not by the Insurance Company in view of the ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of ‘Ved Prakash Garg versus Prem Devi’ reported as 1997 AIR (SC) 3854. [3] With the aforesaid clarification, the appeal is disposed off. [4] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 05.03.2026 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.07 13:25 I agree to specified portions of this document