IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1581 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.11.2010 Narvir Singh ....Petitioner versus National Insurance Company and others ...Respondents II. Civil Revision No.4582 of 2003 (O&M) Smt. Subala Yadav ....Petitioner versus The United India Insurance Company and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.1 in FAO No.1581 of 2002. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the Insurance Company in FAO No.4582 of 2003. None for respondent No.2 in FAO No.4582 of 2003. Mr. S.P.Chahar, Advocate, for respondents 2 to 8. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. 1. Both the above said civil revisions are against the directions given by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner directing the Civil Revision No.1581 of 2002 (O&M) - 2 - petitioner, who was the employer, to pay the interest component of the compensation from the date it became due till the decision of the case. This amount was assessed at Rs.97,850/- and the amount of compensation, determined under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, was directed to be paid by the insurer. The Commissioner had observed that the employee himself had not notified the Insurance Company within time which was his duty to do under the provisions of the WC Act. The Commissioner also observed that there was no evidence to indicate that any efforts had been taken by the employer to secure compensation that was due to the claimant/workman or their representatives within time. The Commissioner took exception to the conduct of the employer and merely filing a written statement and not participating in the proceeding. The cases dealt with the situation of death of one Mehar Singh, who was aged 32 years and the Commissioner took exception to the conduct of the employer in not participating in the trial and having caused unnecessary delay in securing what was just to the legal representatives of the deceased workman. 2. The learned counsel relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.J.Narayan Versus Union of India and others-2004 ACJ 452, that held that the Insurance Company is not statutorily liable for the payment of interest on the amount of compensation and it shall be only the liability of the employer. It even upheld a clause in the policy that the Insurance Company would not take on liability for interest as a valid clause. I do not find any error in the order passed by the Civil Revision No.1581 of 2002 (O&M) - 3 - Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and I dismiss the revision petition. 3. Civil Revision No.4582 of 2003 is identical on facts except that this case relates to an amputation of leg of a workman where the Commissioner assessed a compensation of Rs.2,63,940/- and determined the interest component at Rs.50,152/-. The interest component was directed to be paid by the employer. The direction for payment of interest on the employer has to be sustained for the same reason enumerated in the other case as well. Consequently, this revision is also dismissed affirming the respective awards passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.11.2010 sanjeev