Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010128602013 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MFA/13/2013 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT 3, MIDDLETON STREET, KOLKATA 700071 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S.ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI 781005, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, GUWAHATI. VERSUS DEWANTI DEVI and ORS W/O LATE MOHAN RAM, R/O VILL. CHANDORIA KACHIGHATA CHOWTHANA, P.O.HAJIGANJ, P.S. CHOWTHANA, PATNA, BIHAR. 2:UPENDRA ROY S/O LATE JAGMURAT ROY R/O VILL. MADHAB PUR P.S. SAHPURPATORI DIST. SAMASTIPUR BIHAR For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. S. Roy, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : None appears. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 22.01.2025 Heard Ms. S. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act of 1923’) challenging the order dated 29.12.2008 whereby the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Dhubri had imposed a penalty in terms with Section 4A(3) of the Act of 1923 and directed the Appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.1,69,440/- as penalty (being 50% of the Award) in addition to the amount of compensation of Rs.3,38,880/- with interest thereon as per the Award within 30 days from the date of the said order for disbursement of the same to the claimant. 3. The substantial question of law so proposed in the instant appeal is as to whether the learned Commissioner was justified in imposing the penalty upon the Appellant Company in exercise of power under Section 4A(3) of the Act of 1923. 4. This Court has duly perused the order dated 29.12.2008 and taking into account its content and more particularly to the fact that various opportunities were given to the Appellant Company to make the payment and there was no orders of the appellate forum being placed, this Court finds that the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Dhubri was justified in passing the order dated 29.12.2008. 5. Under such circumstances, the substantial question of law so proposed does not arise for which the instant appeal stands dismissed. However, taking into account that the Respondents have not appeared, this Court is not inclined to impose any cost. 6. It is further observed and directed that the Appellant Company if not yet disbursed the amount as directed vide the order dated 29.12.2008, Page No.# 3/3 the same shall be disbursed to the claimant on or before 13.03.2025. 7. Appeal stands disposed off accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant