ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. MINATI SHANKAR PAIKARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Maulik J. Shelat for the appellant, learned advocate Mr.Jeet Y. Rajyaguru for respondent no.1 and learned advocate Mr.Kunal P. Vaishnav for the respondent no.2.

(2.) Appellant is original opponent no.2 whereas respondent no.1 is original claimant and respondent no.2 is original opponent no.1 in the Workman Compensation (Fatal) Case No.6 of 2008 before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Labour Court of Kachchh at Gandhidham. Such application was preferred by respondent no.2, applicant for the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act because of accidental death of one Parvir Shankar Paikara. So far as nature of incident its result and liability of original opponents are concerned, in absence of appeal on such count, it is believe that there is no dispute to such fact and therefore, those details are not required to be reproduced except to recollect that son of the claimant was serving as Crain Operator, employed by the opponent no.1 in his factory. On 12.06.2006 when he was working on the Crain, during the course of his employment he received fatal injuries accidentally. The claimant has contented that her deceased son was getting Rs. 4615/- as monthly salary and therefore, tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 4,48,000/- as compensation under the W.C. Act to be paid by the present appellant being insurer of the employer. However, when Commissioner has also awarded 50% amount of compensation being Rs. 2,24,000/- towards penalty for not making payment of compensation when it was due and also awarded 12% interest on the amount of compensation.Being aggrieved by such award regarding penalty and interest only, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The contention in appeal is also to the limited extent that the insurance policy issued by the appellant in favour of the insured - respondent no.2 herein is Workmen Compensation Policy which does not cover the risk of interest and penalty that may be required to be paid by insured/employer under the Provision of W.C. Act and therefore, in the impugned judgment Commissioner has exceeded to its jurisdiction. It is also contended that Commissioner has not properly appreciated the decisions reported in (2006) 5 SCC 192 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya so also decisions in the case of Palraj v. Divisional Controller, Noth East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation reported in (2010) 10 SCC 347 , in the case of Kamla Chaturvedi v. National Insurance Company and Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 487 and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and Another reported in (2007) 2 SCC 349 .

(3.) Since, only issue is raised with reference to penalty and interest, perusal of such decision in the case of Harshadbhai Amrubhai Modhiya (supra) specifically confirms that insurance company is not liable to pay penalty and interest. Such views are taken in several other similar cases. However, as discussed in recent judgment dated 22.06.2018 in First Appeal No.1315 of 2006 between the case of The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Meraman Khengar Rajput by this Court, the legal position is well settled which makes it clear that insurance company has to pay interest on awarded amount of compensation but neither penalty nor interest on such penalty.