RAM KARAN Vs. VIJAYANAND AND VIRJANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). The claimants are parents of deceased Lachmi. The claimants are satisfied with the quantum of compensation which was fixed at Rs. 47,720. They however pray that penalty may also be imposed. According to them, there was a failure to make the payment within the stipulated period. According to them penalty at the rate of 50% should have been allowed.

(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed as under: An accident is stated to have taken place on May 30, 1987. The brakes of the truck failed. It rolled back and overturned resulting in the death of Lachmi. Claim petition was filed on September 25, 1987, It is alleged that the owner of the truck acquired the requisite knowledge immediately and under the law it should be presumed that he had the requisite notice under Section 10 of the Act. It may further be seen that the claim as orginally lodged was amended. Originally it was stated that the deceased was engaged as a cleaner but later on an amendment was allowed and deceased was described as a labourer. This amendment was allowed on December 26, 1990. Directions for paying interim maintenance was duly complied with by the Insurance Company and the amount of Rs. 15,000 was ordered to be disbursed on November 6, 1989. Payment in pursuance to the award dated January 6, 1992 has also been made. As stated above, the claimants are now claiming penalty for late payments and for this they contend that they should be paid the maximum penalty under the law.

(3.) THE claim is opposed by the Insurance Company. According to them, no notice was served on the Insurance Company and as such the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with penalty. In any case, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that his clinets have been complying with the directions given by the Commissioner under the Act with promptness and as such the company should not be burdened with liability to pay the penalty.