IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No.869 of 2010 in/and L.P.A. No.265 of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.3.2010 United India Insurance Company, Rohtak. -----Appellant Vs. Shanti Devi & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. Mr. Man Mohan, Advocate for the claimant/respondent No.1. ----- ORDER: 1. Order dated 26.2.2010, dismissing the appeal for non- prosecution is recalled. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits. 3. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the appeal of the appellant in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 16.12.1996 in L.P.A. No.224 of 1996 Satpal v. Subhash Chander Jindal etc. LPA No.265 of 1997 4. Bahadur Chand, resident of Rohtak was employed with Manohar Lal as driver of the truck. The truck was insured with the appellant company. He died in an accident on 9.3.1993. His heirs filed application under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1922 (for short, “the Act”), claiming compensation. The Commissioner vide order dated 25.12.1995 awarded compensation with penalty to the tune of 25% and interest @ 6% per annum with a further direction that if deposit was not made within 30 days, future interest @ 12% will be payable till the date of realization. Appeal of the appellant having been dismissed by learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed. 5. Only contention which has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay penalty and interest prior to the date of award under the provisions of the Act. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and others (1997) 8 SCC 1, to submit that additional amount of compensation by way of penalty was not liable to be paid. Reliance has also been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and another (2007) 2 SCC 349 to submit that liability to pay interest arises from the date of award and that it is from the making of the award that the amount becomes due. 2 LPA No.265 of 1997 6. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg (supra), the appellant Insurance Company will not be liable to pay penalty. Similarly, in view of judgment in Mubasir Ahmed (supra), it will not be liable to pay interest prior to the award. 7. Accordingly, we modify the award of the Commissioner with regard to its applicability to the appellant. 8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE March 18, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3