FAO No. 784 of 1989 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 784 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.3.2011 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ..... Appellant vs Smt. Bachni and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. D. P. Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ashwani Bakhshi, Advocate, for respondent no. 2 and 3. Rajesh Bindal J. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the order dated 3.5.1989, passed by the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act'). Briefly, the facts of the case are that Narata (since deceased) was employed with respondent nos. 2, as driver, on monthly salary of ` 800/-. On 19.11.1987, while on duty, he met with an accident and died. At the time of death, he was about 47 years of age. The claim petition filed by his widow was allowed awarding compensation of ` 52,182.40 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application. Penalty of 45% of the amount of compensation was also imposed on the Insurance company. It is this order which is impugned by the appellant Insurance company in appeal before this court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner has wrongly burdened the appellant company by imposing interest on the amount of compensation from the date of application. The second contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is regarding levy of penalty on account of delayed payment. He submitted that accident in the present case took place on 19.11.1987 and the claim petition was filed in the year 1988, which was decided on 3.5.1989. After the decision of the claim petition, the Insurance company had FAO No. 784 of 1989 (2) deposited the compensation on 13.7.1989. The period for which the claim remained pending with the court, the claimant has been awarded interest @ 6% per annum. In support of his arguments, he relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg vs Premi Devi and others (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1, to submit that the penalty is the liability of the employer and not of the Insurance company as he was liable to pay the amount of compensation payable to the family of the deceased within one month in terms of the provisions of the Act. While not disputing the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg's case (supra), learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no inordinate or intentional delay in the payment of compensation to the claimants. It could be paid only after the assessment. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any clause in terms of the policy which granted exemption to the appellant from liability from payment of interest on the amount of compensation. Reference can be made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kamla Chaturvedi vs National Isurance Company Limited and others 2009 ACJ 115, wherein it was held that the Insurance company cannot avoid its liability to pay interest on the ground that there is no contract entered into by it with the insured for payment of interest as there is no exception stipulated in the policy for payment of interest by insurance company. The issue regarding entitlement of interest to the claimants on the amount of compensation, has also been gone into by this court in New India Assurance Company Limited vs Manphool Singh and others (2008- 1) PLR 706, wherein following judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs Srinivas Sabata (1976) 1 SCC 289, it has been opined that the claimants shall be entitled to interest not from the date of order/award of the Commissioner, but on expiry of one month from the date of accident. FAO No. 784 of 1989 (3) Accordingly, the claim made by the appellant to that extent is rejected. The accident in the present case had taken place in the year 1987, considering the time gap, if the amount of penalty has already been paid by the insurance company, the amount being small, I do not find it appropriate to interfere at this stage. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. 22.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge