1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 287 of 1996 Date of Decision: 07.07.2011 *** M/s National Insurance Company Limited .. Appellant VS. Shri Ram Phal & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate None for the respondents. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The appellant is laying challenge to the award dated 28.11.1995 passed by the learned Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Hisar Circle, Hisar by virtue of which the claim filed by respondents No.2 and 3, on account of death of Phool Parkash @ Phool Kumar, who died in an accident while driving Matador No. DL2CC-5643, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with the appellant,has been allowed and appellant Insurance Company has been directed to pay Rs.89100/- as compensation with two months, failing which the amount shall carry an interest @ 6% from the date of filing the claim till realization. Besides a penalty of Rs.25000/- has been foisted upon the appellant. I have gone through the impugned award and find no justification to interfere with the same, 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.25,000/-, upon the Insurance Company is concerned, the same is not sustainable. A perusal of decision rendered by this Court in FAO No.480 of 1992, decided on 31.1.2011, reveals that while relying upon 2 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. 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.25,000/-. The instant appeal stands disposed of accordingly. However, it is made clear that there shall be no bar for the claimants to seek the amount of penalty, as imposed by the Tribunal below, from the employer. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 07,2011 Jiten