FAO No. 645 of 1995 [1] IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 645 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.1.2011 M/s Sewak Ram Chadha & Kuldeep Rai Chadha ...Appellant Versus Ajit Singh and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rajesh Bindal, J. Challenge in the present appeal filed by the employer is to the order passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner (for short, `the Commissioner'), whereby in addition to assessment of compensation on account of the death of Rohtas, penalty to the extent of 50% of the amount of compensation and interest @ 6% has been awarded. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant in the present case was working as a contractor for transportation of the tractors owned by Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. from its factory to the place of its dealer. It is not disputed that Rohtas was employed as a driver for the purpose and he died during the course of employment. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant was that once the policy of insurance had been taken, the employer cannot be said to be at fault as it was the duty of the insurance company to pay the compensation to the family of the deceased when due. No show cause notice was issued to the appellant before levy of penalty. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 clearly provides for levy of penalty and interest on account of default in payment of compensation to the family of the deceased or an insured. In the present case, the accident had taken place on FAO No. 645 of 1995 [2] 20.6.1987. The amount having not been paid to the family of the deceased, application was filed before the Commissioner on 19.6.1988. It was decided on 28.12.1994. Once the amount was not paid to the family of the deceased immediately after his death or within a reasonable time, the employer is certainly liable to pay interest for the delayed payment and also penalty. As regards liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, no doubt in case an insured has taken insurance coverage, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. However, the primary liability is of the insured, i.e., employer. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 17.1.2011 mk