^ COURT OF CHHATTIS^ARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 171/2006 CORAm: Hon'ble Shri S.R.Nayak, Chief Justice & Hon'ble Shri b.R.D©shmukh,J. AoDeibnt ^ Resoondents United India Insurance Comp^ny Ltd., Through - Branch Manager, Branch - Jagdalpur (C.B.) Non-appJicajniTjsJaJ, Versus 1, Subhash Chandra A^ishra S/o Akshewar Nath, aged about 54 years, R/o So.njay Market, Jagdaipur, Distnct Bastar (C.^) 2. Shatrughan Prasad Tiwari S/o Ayodhya Prasad, R/o Indira Ward, Near Samoy Market, Ja9daSpur, bistrict Bastar (C.&.) Non-aoDllcants, 1 & 2 3, Smt. Demuna Bd Vl/d/o Late Shri KaJiram, Caste - Yadav, about 42 years, 4, Omprakash Yadav S/o Late Shri Kaliram Yadav, Aged 18 years (Minor), 5, Jaiprakash Yadav S/o Late Shri Kaliram Yadav aged about 14 years (Minor), 6, Ramprakash Yadav S/o Late Shri Kaliram Yaday, 12 years (Minor), 7. Jeetprakash Vadav S/o Late Shri Kaliram Yadav, Q9ed about 7 yeGrs (Minor), Nos,4 to 7 through Wali Mother/Guardian Smt. Oemuna Bai Wd/o Late Shri Kaliram. AII/R/o Bahadurguda, Tliana Bodhghat, District Bcxstar, Jagdalpur (C*G,) Appiicants Shr? Sanj'ay K. ^grawai for the appedant ORAL OftbER (Passed on 15.2.2006) The following ora! order of the Court by S.R.NAY.4K, C..J. —2^ >- -2- s> In this preferred by the Insurance-Company, it contended by the for the Insurance-Company that though the chiinCTit is entitted to claim interest in terms of (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Workmen Compensation Act 1923 Oiereinafter to as ltha Act) from the empbyer, that liabiSjt-/ be on the Insurance-Company. It by tlie for the appellant that the did not die in the accident arising out of and in the course of his eiTipioyment and, therefore, the representatives of the are not to conipensation. 2, We do not any m both the contentions. The Iiabi!i^ of.the Insurer to pay the interest in terms of (a) of sub" (3) of Section 4A of the Act is co-extensive with iiabiiity of the empioyer to pay interest. As the contention, suffice it to that though a vague taken by the Insurance-Company in its written statement that the natura! death/that not substantiated by any substantive evidence, Tlie as as the proof are ytterly lacking. 3. This is of merit and dismissed. No costs* Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge A~ni^^ "J