HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAS nivicirtN Ri=MnH *rfiwi<^i^^iiiB arf»-iiai»/i> CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI KAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KS O OSftiUA B R, ^ij'tin^i, v. r^l^t^^.».i^ ^•tcijiiiaiil.s 1 Durga Prasad Ko!, S/o aged about 65 y'cciio 2 Smt Triveni Bai W/o Durga Prasad Ko!, ct^isu ctLiuui o^- yc'ctts* 3 Smt Kusum Kol Widow of Late Ajay Kumar Kol, aged about 32 years 4 Ku. Anjali Kot 016. Late Ajay Kumar Koi, aged about 11 years 5 Siddhant Kol S/o Late Ajay Kumar Kol, aaed about 5 vears Appeltant No.4 & 5 being minor through their natura! Guardian Mother Smt Kusum Ko! Widow of Late Ajay Kumar Al! appeltants are resldents of Gaurella, behind FDC Godown, Tahsi! Pendra ioad, District Bilaspur CG T.he Chhattisgarh State Civii Supplies Corporation LJmited Raipur, Through the Managing Director, Bal Ashram ihawan, Kachahari Chowk, Ralpur (CG) 2 The District Manager, Chhattisgarh State Civil Suppiies Corporation Limited iilaspur 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch office Bilaspu'r (CG) Through its Branch Manager iisc. ADDeal under Section 30 of theJfVortanen's f^ompensaSion AcS. 1323 'resenl Shri Rakesh Pandev, counsel'forthe appeiiants. .^!seas ^..-A» ^^ Shri Varunendra Mishra, counsel Tor respondents No.1 52. Shri Q Aziz, counsel for respondent No.3. (8th August, 2009) The fotlowina order of the Court was passed by .Learned counse! for the parties are heard on MCP No.689/2006, a petition for condonation of delay In filing the appeai. 2) On due consideration of the submisaions of learned counset for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficlent cause for she delay in filing the appeal. 3) MCP No.689/2006, therefore, is aliowed and the delay of two days in fiiing the appeal Is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appetlants is heard on admission. 5) The appeliants have flled this appeal against the impugned award dated 31.01.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation / Labour Court, Bilaspur in case No.'WSAA/CA/ \ i) The Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.2,21,975/- along with interest @ 12% per annum for the death of Ajay Kol, son of appellants No.1 & 2; husband of appellant No.3; and father of appeilants No.4 & 5 during the course of his employment with respondents No.1 & 2. The Commissioner further directed ••-'^•ss^.^ \'.: ; 3@paKt j i'\ s ff 3 ^ NB respondents No.1 & 2 to pay penalty of Rs.IO. th< ciaimants. Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited was made Jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and interest thereon to the claimants. 7) S'nri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appeliants vehemently argued that the Commissionsr for Workmen's Compensation has erred in imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/'- only, whereas the penaltv could haye baen to the extent of 50% of the amount ofthe compensation. i) What should be the amount of penafty in a given case would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case, found it appropriate to impose penaity of Rs.10,000/-. 3). What should be the amount of penalty in a given case is not even a question of law much less a substantial question of law. 10) We, therefore, do not find any scope for interference in this appeal filed by the appetlants under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 11) . ,The appeal, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarilv. Sd/- Quef Justice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge paama