1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 933 of 1993 and Cross objections No.63-CII of 1993 Date of Decision: 07.07.2011 *** United India Insurance Company Limited .. Appellant VS. Bal Kaur & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate Mr. Chanderdeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The appellant is laying challenge to the award dated 25.2.1993 passed by the learned Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Fatehgarh Sahib at Mandi Gobindgarh by virtue of which the claim filed by respondent No.1 on account of death of her son Nirmal Singh, working as driver with respondent No.2, which was insured with the appellant, has been allowed and appellant Insurance Company has been directed to pay Rs.87634.20 ps as compensation along with 6% interest per annum from the date of accident till realization. In the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs.20,223/- was also included as penalty. By filing the instant appeal, the insurance company has challenged the impugned award only, so far as imposition of penalty is concerned. Respondent No.1 has also filed cross-objections seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation and interest thereupon. On 6.10.1993 the instant appeal was admitted and was ordered to be heard along with FAO No. 480 of 1992 and 752 of 1990. Learned 2 counsel has pointed out that the said appeal has already been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 31.1.2011, however, the instant appeal inadvertently could not be listed along with that appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that FAO No. 480 of 1992 has been disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 31.1.2011 and the insurance company therein has been exonerated of its liability of pay the penalty amount. A perusal of the judgment passed by this Court in FAO No. 480 of 1992, it reveals that while relying upon the decision in the case of Ved Parkash Garg Vs. Premi Devi & Ors. 1997(8) Supreme Court Cases 1, wherein it has been observed that the insurance company cannot be made liable to reimburse the penalty imposed upon the employer, this Court set aside the levy of penalty imposed upon the Insurance Company. I have gone through the impugned award and find no merit in the cross-objection filed by respondent No.1. There is no justification to interfere with the award, so far as quantum of compensation and award of interest thereupon and the liability of the appellant Insurance Company to satisfy the award, is concerned. However, so far as imposition of penalty of Rs.20,223/-, upon the Insurance Company is concerned, the same is not sustainable, in view of the legal position referred to above. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the impugned award is modified and the insurance company is exonerated of its liability to pay the penalty amount of Rs.20,223/-. The instant appeal stands allowed accordingly, while the cross- objections are dismissed. However, it is made clear that there shall be no bar for the claimant to seek the amount of penalty, as imposed by the Tribunal below, from the employer. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 07,2011 Jiten