IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (WCA) 35 of 2004. Date of decision April 29, 2009. New India Assurance Co. …Appellant. Versus Budh Ram and another …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the appellant Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate. For respondent 1 Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For respondent 2 Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). The grievance made by the Insurance Company, appellant herein is that the Commissioner has erred in imposing penalty and interest on the Insurance Company. On the first aspect, the order of the Commissioner is absolutely clear when it says that the amount of penalty is to be recovered only from the employer. The law on this point is well settled in the decision of the Supreme Court 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - in L.R.Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Mahavir Mahto and another, (2002) 9 SCC 450. On the second aspect, learned counsel submits that the Commissioner was wrong in awarding interest from the date of the accident and not from the date of judgment as the amount would become due only from the date of the award. This Court in FAO (WCA) No. 270 of 2002, Sita Ram v. Satvinder Singh and another, decided on 30.5.2008, held: “The Constitution Bench had already decided the question as to when compensation falls due in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Unfortunately, this decision of the Constitution Bench was not brought to the notice of the Apex Court while deciding National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and another, 2007 ACJ 845. Therefore, I feel that this Court is bound by the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court and I accordingly hold that the compensation falls due on the date when the accident takes place and in case the same is not deposited within thirty days, the - 3 - workman is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% per annum without having to show that delay in depositing the compensation was attributable to the employer. While taking this view, I am supported by a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rekha, 2008 ACJ 886.” This principle of law has been reiterated by this Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Miss Sushma and others, 2008 (2) Shim. LC 424. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. April 29, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.