r ^. ^ / IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fC) No. ^ 01 /2009 4^ :-^a^^t APPELLANT fNon-ADplicant No.2^ •^c?..le<?;A.< ^^•'•"'/^h^' ....••••Al<.'-F";";.. ^:;.^^"^ ^•^' RESPONDENTS fApplicants) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, ranch Office Jagadalpur, Jaipur Road Near Jhankar Talkies Jagadalpur District Bastar (C.G.) <> VERSUS 1. Brijlal S<^u<JI ha TCV^VL. S/o Says^waw ^- Diawan Aged about 29 years, Caste "Kalar" R/o Village Mundagaon Bazar Para P.S. Bhanpuri, tahsil Jagadalpur District Bastar (C.G.) Non ADplicant No. 1 ^ Barsati Lal Gupta S/o Makhanlal Gupta Aged about 33 year by cast Gupta R/o Village Sonarpal Post Sonarpal Tahsil Jagadalpur Distt. Bastar (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 30 OF tHE WORKMAN . COMPENSATZON ACT %:t^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA (C) No. 401 OF 2009 Appellant Non applicant No. 2 Respondents The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Brijlal & Another Miscellaneous appeal under section 30 ofWorkmen's Compensation Act. 1923 (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K.Aaarwal, J.l Present : Shri AK Athaley, Advocate for the appellant. Shri PK Tulsyan, Advocate for respondent No. 1. ORDER (Passed on 24th day of June,2010) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This is appeal filed by the insurance company against the award dated 24.12.2008, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Jagdaipur, in Case No. B-13A/VC Act/08/Non Fetal, awarding Rs. 1,51,142/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of accident, holding the appellanVinsurance company liable for its payment. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 27.03.2007, the claimant Brijlal suffered injuries by an accident arising out of and during the course of employment as a result of which he suffered 40 percent permanent disability. 4. The claimant i.e. respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Jagdalpur, under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,51,142/- alongwith interest and •i^ \"-( 1 ;^^.^f^^ i t ff .5'Oy "^^^y^- 8. penalty thereupon for the injures sustained by him in the said accident. The Commissioner for Workmen, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions made by the parties, awarded Rs. 1,51,142/- as compensation in favour of daimanVrespondent No. 1 alongwith interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of accident holding the appellant/insurance company liable for its payment; also awarded Rs. 25,000/- as penalty payable by employer. The only submission made by Shri Athaley is that the Commissioner has committed illegality in awarding interest against the appellant. As per him, under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, the amount of interest is not payable by the insurer because no such agreement has been proved by the claimant under which the appellant insurance company can be held liable for"payment of interest. On the other hand, Shri Tulsyan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 supported the award and wouid submit that the policy issued in the case is motor vehicle policy and as such the insurance company is responsible for payment of interest to the clajmant and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the award impugned and records ofcourt below. Undisputedly, the policy is motor vehicle policy. The Supreme Court in case of L.R. Ferro Allpys Ltd. -v- Mahavir Mlahto and another and observed in para 5 as under:- 1 (2002)9 SCC 450 I'SK^V '^^. ^v.^ '^^^y ys^ 10. 11. 12. "5. The only contention put forth before us is that the entire liability including penalty and interest will have to be reimbursed by the insurance company and this aspect has not been examined by the leamed Single Judge in the High Court and needs examination at our hands. In Ved Prakash Gargv. Prem/Dewthis Court after examining the entire scheme of the Act held that payment of interest and penalty are ftwo distinct iiabilities arising under the Act, while liability to pay interest is part and parcel of legal liability to pay compensation upon default of payment of that amount within one month. Therefore, claim for compensation along with interest will have to be made good jointly by the insurance company with the insured employer. But, so far as the penalty imposed on the insured employer is on account of his personal fault the insurance company cannot be made liable to reimburse penalty imposed on the employer. Hence the compensation with interest is payable by the insurance company but not penalty. Following the said decision and for the reasons stated therein, we modify the order made by the High Court to that extent. The appeal is allowed in part accordingly." In -view of above law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is clear that so far as payment of interest is concerned, it is payable jointly by the insurance company with the insured employer. In view of foregoing, in the considered opinion of this court, no substantial question of law arises in the instant case for determination of this court. In the result, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge