IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 270 of 2008 Mohan Singh Mair … Appellant Vs Rajendra Singh & another … Respondents Sri Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the appellant Sri B.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 has been filed by the appellant/employer against the judgment and award dated 12.03.2008 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haldwani, District Nainital in W.C.A. No. 74 of 2002, Rajendra Singh Vs Mohan Singh Mair & another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Rajendra Singh was working as a cleaner in truck No. UP01/6161 under the ownership of Mohan Singh Mair. On 25.07.2002 during the course of his employment, he met with an accident due to which, he sustained serious injuries on his left leg. At the time of the accident he was 20 years of age and used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month as salary. Therefore, he filed an application before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation. 3. Thereafter, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 – Mohan Singh Mair contested the claim of the claimant by filing written statement before the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner alleging therein that the New India Assurance Company Ltd. was the necessary party, therefore, he prays for impleaded the Insurance Company as a party. On 21.06.2005, New India 2 Assurance Company Ltd. impleaded as party. It has further pleaded in the written statement that he has given Rs. 2,000/- to the claimant, as monthly salary. It has also pleaded that the truck in question was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. therefore, the claimant/injured was entitled to get compensation, if any, from the Insurance Company. 4. On 16.08.2005, opposite party No. 2 – the New India Assurance Company Ltd. also submitted the written statement with the court concerned denying the insurance of the cleaner under the policy. 5. After submission of the statement of the parties, they were provided sufficient opportunity to proof their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner passed an award dated 12.03.2008 directing therein the New India Assurance Company Ltd. to pay a sum of Rs. 81,607/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the award, till the date of the actual payment. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner at the same time also directed the employer/appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 48,964/- as an interest w.e.f. 25.07.2002 to 25.07.2007. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the employer/appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 7. Heard Sri Sri Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 3 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued only on the point of interest, which was awarded against him by the learned Workmen Commissioner. In order to support his contention, he has invited my attention towards the operative portion of the impugned judgment wherein the learned Commissioner awarded Rs. 48,964/- as an interest w.e.f. 25.07.2002 to 25.07.2007 against the employer/appellant. 9. In order to resolve the sole controversy, I have gone through the entire record available before me. As far as the direction issued by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner with regard to the payment of the compensation amounting to Rs. 81,607/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of passing the award, till the date of actual payment is concerned, that appears to be absolutely justified and the same does not require any interference. However, the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner fell in error by directing the employer to pay a sum of Rs. 48,964/- as an interest w.e.f. 25.07.2002 to 25.07.2007. The reason for issuing the direction to the employer for paying the aforesaid amount as an interest is that the owner remains absent during the proceeding of the case. The finding recorded by the Commissioner does not appear to be justified. The learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner imposed the interest on the employer as penalty, which could not have been done. Merely, on the ground that the insurer remained absent during the course of the proceeding, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner could not have imposed the penalty on the employer. 10. I do not find myself in agreement with the finding recorded by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner that a 4 sum of Rs. 48,964/- imposing the interest against the employer. This finding deserves to be set aside. 11. In view of the above observations, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner is modified upto the extent that the employer/appellant should be exonerated from paying a sum of Rs. 48,964/- as interest to the workman. However, rest of the award is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 18.11.2008 ASWAL