FAO No. 364 of 1989 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 364 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision : 31.1.2011 Bhupinder Kaur and others ..... Appellants vs Punjab State Electricity Board and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Ms. Deepa Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. The dependents of deceased Charan Dass, who expired during the course of his employment on 11.9.1986, are in appeal challenging the order of Workman's Compensation Commissioner, Ropar (for short, 'the Commissioner'), claiming that the respondents in the present case were required to be penalized under Section 4-A of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act'), for delay of payment of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondents in the present case were required to be burdened with penalty to the extent of 50% of the amount of compensation on account of delay of payment of compensation, which the appellants are entitled to. The levy of penalty is mandatory as the respondents have not given any justifiable reason for delaying the payment of compensation which otherwise was admitted. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs Shrinivas Sabata and another 1976 Accidents Claims Journal 141. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, especially finding on issue no. 4, shows that accident in which the employee of the respondent-Board expired, had taken place on 11.9.1986; the sanction for payment of compensation was granted by the competent authority within FAO No. 364 of 1989 (2) two moths after the death of Charan Dass. However, the amount of compensation was deposited with the Commissioner only in March 1987. For this period of delay, the Commissioner had already burdened the respondent-Board with interest. The aforesaid fact does not justify the claim for levy of penalty as it cannot be said that the payment of compensation to the family of the deceased was deliberately delayed. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed. 31.1.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge