F.A.O. NO.783 OF 1990 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 18, 2008 Gurbachan Singh and others .....Appellants VERSUS M/s Garg Bus Service Regd., Patran and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. H. S. Sawhney, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for Insurance Company. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The appellants, four in number, have filed this appeal, impugning the order passed by Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Commissioner had granted compensation to the tune of Rs.59,301-20P with a direction to respondent No.3-New India Assurance Company Limited to pay the said amount of compensation. F.A.O. NO.783 OF 1990 :{ 2 }: The facts, in brief, are that Sukhpal Singh was employed as a Driver of Bus No.PAB-8284 under respondent No.1. Said Sukhpal Singh died in an accident on 8.2.1988. The cause of accident allegedly was the failure of steering of said bus, leading to accident and multiple injuries to said Sukhpal Singh, to which he succumbed. The appellants, being related to the deceased, have filed claim petition seeking compensation, leading to award of above referred amount. Aggrieved against the compensation awarded, the appellants have filed the appeal, impugning the amounts of compensation as awarded, being on lower side. In addition, it is prayed that it is a case where penalty was also required to be imposed in view of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, “the Act”). During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has restricted his prayer in regard to award of penalty only and has fairly conceded that he would not be able to substantiate his plea for enhancement of compensation as assessed by the Commissioner. Learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, however, mainly contends that penalty in this case is not payable as notice under Section 10 of the Act, before filing the claim petition, was not issued and hence, there was no opportunity for the respondent-Insurance Company to pay the compensation, which could invite the penalty under Section 4 and 4A of the Act. Section 10 of the Act provides that no claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner provided therein as F.A.O. NO.783 OF 1990 :{ 3 }: soon as practicable after the happening thereof and unless the claim is preferred before him within two years of the occurrence of the accident or in case of death within two years from the date of death. Though on the initial brush, Section 10 would appear to lay down that no claim for compensation is entertainable unless notice of the accident is given but the provisos thereunder would carve out an exception to the general rules legislated in the Section. Learned counsel for the appellants has particularly referred to proviso 4 of the Section, which reads as under:- “[Provided further that the want of or any defect or irregularity in a notice shall not be a bar to the [entertainment of a claim]- (a) if the claim is [preferred] in respect of the death of a workman resulting from an accident which occurred on the premises of the employer, or at any place where the workman at the time of the accident was working under the control of the employer or of any person employed by him, and the workman died on such premises or at such place, or on any premises belonging to the employer, or died without having left the vicinity of the premises or place were the acident occurred, or (b) if the employer [or any one of several employers or any person responsible to the employer for the management of any branch of the trade or business in which the injured workman was employed] had knowledge of the accident from any other source at or F.A.O. NO.783 OF 1990 :{ 4 }: about the time when it occurred:] It is, thus, clear that if an employer had knowledge of the accident from any other source or about the time when it occurred, then want of any difficulty or irregularity in the notice can not be a bar to entertain the claim of compensation. The facts in the present case would clearly reveal that late Sukhpal Singh was employed as a Driver on the bus by the respondent-Company. It would not be possible to plead for the employer that he was not aware of the accident. There is sufficient evidence available that employer of Sukhpal Singh had the knowledge of the accident from various sources and about the time when it occurred. Accordingly, the requirement of a notice, as envisaged under Section 10 of the Act, would not be a difficulty or irregularity, which can be pleaded to bar the claim. Since the employer was in the knowledge of accident and of the death of its employee and he has not paid the compensation within the stipulated period, the justification for award of penalty, in addition to compensation, is clearly made out. Accordingly, the respondent-Insurance Company, in addition to the compensation, would also be liable to pay the penalty, which, according to the then existing provision, could not be more than 50% of the amount of compensation as awarded in terms of Section 4A(3) of unamended Act. This aspect of the accident, to which the penalty can be imposed, is not disputed by counsel for the appellants. Since the appellants had contested this appeal and the claim petition for numerous years, I deem it appropriate to grant 50% of the amount of compensation as a penalty. It is so ordered. As a matter of abundant F.A.O. NO.783 OF 1990 :{ 5 }: caution, it is clarified that the appellants would be entitled to an amount little over Rs.29,000/-. The Insurance Company would be liable to pay the said amount as penalty. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. August 18,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE