1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR F. A. No. 88 OF 2009 Gangaram s/o Dasaruji Meshram v. Smt. Suman wd/o Ishwardas Khotele & ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. N.G. Solao Advocate for the appellant. ..... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 9 th JULY, 2009. Heard Mr.Solao, learned counsel for the appellant on admission of this appeal. He argued that three substantial questions of law framed by him in the memo of appeal arise in the present appeal. 2. I have considered all the three substantial questions of law. Notice under Section 10 of The Workmen s Compensation Act is required to be given before claiming compensation and there is no separate requirement for issuing notice for penalty and interest. The second question framed is again 2 misconceived. It is the employer who is required to give justifiable reason for delay in making payment of compensation and not the insurance company. The third question regarding financial position of the appellant cannot be said to be a question of law nor the same can be a reason for justification for delay in paying the compensation. There is no substance in the present appeal. Same is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE /TA/