IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (WCA) No. 5 of 2005. Decided on: 27.10.2009. __________________________________________________ National Insurance Company Ltd. … Appellant. Versus Sh. Thakur Dass and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Y. Paul, Advocate vice Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. This petition has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the judgment and order of the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, thereby granting compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,36,940/- along with interest to the claimant for the loss of death of his son who died in an accident of vehicle No. HP- 03-0917. On the facts established, the Commissioner held that the deceased was a workman with Shri Rakesh Kumar and had been employed as a Driver. The factum of the accident is not disputed, however, while awarding the compensation, the Commissioner holds that it should be paid along with interest failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay 30% of the assessed amount as penalty. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the findings of the Commissioner that there was no dependency so far as the claimant is concerned, has been established on record and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes. 2 that the claim petition as such was not maintainable. This is the first question for determination by this Court. I cannot accept this submission as the evidence on record is clear that the deceased used to handover the entire salary to the petitioner herein. Merely urging of dependency cannot be a ground for establishing that the petition is not maintainable. The testimony of PW-1 on this aspect has remained unrebutted. The second question raised is that “Bhatta” paid did not form part of the salary package. This submission requires to be rejected outright. This Court in FAO (WCA) No. 168 of 2007, decided on 29th August, 2007, titled as Manager, Tibetan Staff Mess, Tibetan Secretariat v. Farman Ali and others, and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Guddo and others, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1181) has already decided that “Bhatta” does form part of the salary package. On the question of interest payable, the matter is concluded by the judgment of this Court in Sita Ram v. Satvinder Singh and another, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1110. The third question raised is penalty of 30% which has been levied against law. I agree with the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The Commissioner has no jurisdiction to issue such a direction levying 30% penalty in case of non-deposit of compensation. This part of the judgment of the Commissioner is accordingly modified. The appeal is disposed of with the directions hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. October 27, 2009. (cr)