IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 995 of 1991 (O&M) United India Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant vs Mukhtiar Singh and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R. P. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for respondent no. 2. Rajesh Bindal, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order of imposition of penalty of ` 10,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in terms of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg vs Premi Devi and others 1997 (3) PLR 606, the insurance company is not liable for payment of penalty. It is the employer who is to bear the burden of penalty. The insurance company is only liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Ambala (for short, 'the Commissioner'). Learned counsel for the respondent could not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg's case (supra), wherein it was held that the insurance company is not liable to bear the burden of penalty as imposed by the Commissioner under Section 4A (3) (b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and it is the liability of the employer only. As the legal issue which is involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg's case (supra), the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is modified to the extent that the amount awarded by the Commissioner on account of penalty, the liability shall be solely of the employer and not joint and several with the insurance company. The claimant shall be entitled to recover the penalty amount from the employer, if not already recovered. Disposed of. 18.1.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge