IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1309 OF 2007 (M/S) National Insurance Co. Ltd. …..Petitioner Vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner Haldwani and others. ….Respondents Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1. 21.07.2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 17.7.1997 passed by the respondent no. 1 i.e. Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Haldwani in W.C.A. No. 16 of 1996 to the extent of imposition of interest against the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 filed a claim petition before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner for compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,32,336 alongwith penalty to the extent of Rs. 1,16,468/- and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on account of death of their father Sri Nandan Singh. Late Sri Nandan Singh was employed as driver by the respondent no. 6 in his truck no. UP-2B/545 which met with an accident resulting into his death. 3. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner vide its order dated 27.3.1997 held that Sri Nandan Singh (since deceased) died during the course of employment when the 2 truck no. UP 2-B/545 met with an accident. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has allowed Rs. 2,03,850/- as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of accident till the actual payment of the compensation. Further, on 17.7.1997, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner rejected the objection of the petitioner with regard to review of the imposition of the interest on the amount of compensation. The imposition of penalty was also rejected by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. 4. Perused the impugned order as well as the documents available on record. 5. I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned order and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order passed by the respondent no. 1 is affirmed. 6. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 21.7.2008 Rathour/Avneet