1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1856 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 13943 OF 2009 Sunita w/o Chandrakant Sarode .. APPLICANT VERSUS Sujata w/o Jaywant Chalak & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. D.D. Shinde, Advocate holding for Mr. V.B. Anjanwatikar, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 5. Mr. V.G. Raokhande, Advocate holding for Mr. S.M. Godsay, Advocate for respondent no. 6. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 11 th FEBRUARY, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Claim presented by respondents / claimants for award of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act has been allowed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the owner has been held liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,94,120/- alongwith penalty and interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2 2 It is stated by the claimants in the claim petition that deceased Jaiwant was serving as driver on the vehicle owned by the original respondent. On the given date, deceased was on duty to drive the vehicle from one place to another. It is further stated that when the driver of the vehicle alongwith the passengers reached Tuljapur, because of the pressure of work put on him, the driver of the vehicle started feeling pain in his chest. As such, he was being taken to the hospital. While the deceased was being taken to the hospital, he met with death. It is stated by the claimants that the death of deceased is directly connected with the employment and, as such, the employer is liable to pay compensation. It is further stated that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company. Insurance company is also held responsible to pay compensation. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation while awarding the claim has also held the owner responsible for payment of penalty and interest. It is the contention of the owner / appellant herein that the instant appeal presented in this court is restricted to part of the order covered by section 30(i)(aa) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and, as such, certificate in respect of deposit of amount is not necessary to be presented alongwith the appeal. It is also further contended relying upon the order passed by this court in Civil Application 3 no. 6058/2008 in First Appeal no. 1537/2008 that in case of appeal presented under the provisions of section 30(i)(aa) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, compliance of provisions of section 30 II proviso need not be insisted upon. The precondition of deposit of amount as provided under section 30 is attracted only in case of appeal presented under section 30(i)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 3 Another argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that before directing payment of penalty, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation did not issue any notice to the owner of the vehicle. So far as liability in respect of payment of interest is concerned, the same is required to be shared by the insurance company. However, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation while passing the award has held the owner only responsible in respect of payment in interest. As the insurance company has deposited the amount, that part of the order passed under section 30(i)(a) is not made subject matter of challenge by the appellant. In this view of the matter, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'. No costs. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/ca1856.10.odt 4