1 FA No.566 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD First Appeal No.566 Of 2011 With Civil Application No.16359 Of 2010 The Sub Divisional Officer, Minor Irrigation (Survey) Sub Division Kandhar And Others. .. Appellants. Versus Anusayabai w/o Devrao Rathod And Others. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for appellants. Shri. G.R. Ingole Patil, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. -------- CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. DATE: 13th JUNE 2011 PER COURT : 1) Heard Shri. Thombre learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri. G.R. Ingole-Patil, learned counsel for the respondents. 2 FA No.566 of 2011 2) This is an appeal arising out of judgment and award passed in W.C.F.A. No.12 of 2006 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded on 28-1-2010. The legal representatives of the deceased employee claimed compensation on account of death of the workman during the course of employment with the appellants / original respondents. The trial Court after considering all the relevant circumstances held the original respondents - employer responsible for payment of compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.3,73,800/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date when it became due i.e. from 10-8-2004. The respondents are also directed to pay penalty at the rate of 50% of the compensation amount i.e. Rs.1,86,900/- to the original claimants, legal representatives of the deceased. 3) I have perused written statement presented by the employer. In para 3 of the Written Statement it has been clearly admitted that the deceased died on 10-7-2004 at 4.30 p.m. while working in the field of Manik Sudam Wagmare, while discharging his duties. The respondents 3 FA No.566 of 2011 have further stated in the Written Statement that, a proposal in respect of payment of compensation was sent by the Superintending Engineer, Nanded Irrigation Circle to the Commissioner, Shramik Bharpai, Mumbai, vide letter dated 14-12-2005. In view of the clear admission in respect of liability by the employer, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in allowing the claim. 4) The learned counsel appearing for the employer states that, it was error on the part of the Commissioner to direct payment of penalty by the employer. It is stated that there was no intentional act on the part of the employer to evade responsibility of payment of compensation. The Commissioner has recorded that though the proposal was forwarded on 14-12-2005 the amount has not been paid for a considerable period even until disposal of the application in the year 2010. The contention raised by the employer that there is no intentional act to evade the liability in payment of compensation is without any foundation. 4 FA No.566 of 2011 5) No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the matter. The appeal is devoid of any merit. The appeal is dismissed. 6) In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending Civil Application No.16359 of 2010 does not survive, it stands disposed of. Sd/- (R.M. BORDE, J.) rsl