FAO No. 295 of 1989 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 295 of 1989 and Cross Objections No. 99-CII of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.4.2011 United India Insurance Company Limited .. Appellant v. Shri Beant Singh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate for Mr. N. K. Khosla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J. L. Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal filed by the Insurance Company is to the award dated 1.12.1988, passed by the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, `the Act'), awarding ` 61,586/- as compensation on account of the injuries suffered by respondent No. 2. In addition to that, penalty of ` 18,475.80 and interest @ 6% per annum was granted. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Insurance Company in the present case is not liable to pay interest and penalty. He relied on Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and others, (1997) 8 SCC 1 to submit that 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. On the other hand, learned counsel for the cross-objector FAO No. 295 of 1989 [2] (respondent No. 2) submitted that the amount of compensation awarded to him is quite meagre considering the fact that he suffered 70% disability. His left leg was cut, whereas iron rod was put in the right leg. He could not carry on the job of driver any more. The compensation be suitably enhanced. Even if there are certain parameters laid down in the Act, those are only guiding factors and this court can always award any amount of compensation, which is reasonable. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. As far as award of interest is concerned learned counsel for the Insurance Company has not been able to point out any clause in terms of the policy which granted exemption to the Insurance Company from liability from payment of interest on the amount of compensation. Reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kamla Chaturvedi v. National Insurance 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 the Insurance Company. The issue regarding entitlement of interest to the claimant on the amount of compensation has also been gone into by this court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Manphool Singh and others, (2008- 1) PLR 706, wherein following the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. 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. Accordingly, the claim made by the Insurance Company to that extent is rejected. As far as amount of penalty is concerned, a perusal of the impugned award shows that meagre amount of 18,475.80 was levied as penalty way back in the year 1988. As is evident from the order passed by FAO No. 295 of 1989 [3] this court on 11.4.1989, the amount of interest and penalty was directed to be deposited by the Insurance Company. Though as per provisions of Section 30 of the Act, appeal by the Insurance Company itself was not maintainable as the entire amount due as per the order of the Commissioner was not deposited at the time of filing of appeal, but still considering the fact that small amount of penalty, if considered today, is involved in the present case, which has been deposited and paid to the claimant-respondent No. 2, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the Commissioner on that account. As far as the cross objections filed by the cross- objector/claimant are concerned, in the absence of any justification made by the learned counsel for increase in the amount of compensation on the basis of principles laid down in the Act, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award even on that account. Accordingly, the appeal as well as the cross objections are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 18.4.2011 mk