KHIROD NAYAK Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In important point of law needs' determination in this application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution the same relates to the liability of the insurer to pay penalty' - Visualised by Section 4 -A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act').

(2.) THE question arises on these facts. The petitioner was an employee of opp, party No, 2. He was engaged as a helper in a tanker. He was involved in an accident in which he suffered severe , bodily injuries. He claimed compensation as permitted by the Act. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation after a full fledged hearing, by his award dated 3rd November, 1987, determined the amount of compensation payable at Rs. 54, 460. 35. He thereafter stated as below: 'As the vehicle in question of the O.P. No. I was validly insured with the Oriental - Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Policy No. 31511/MB/ - 233/86 -Comp. covering the date of accident, the Insurance Company stated above is to pay the amount of - compensation of Rs. 54460.35 immediately. As the said amount of compensation has not been deposited' within the month from the date of accident by the employer, a further sum of Rs. 32, 897.02 is imposed as penalty to the tune of of 50% of the amount of compensation together with interest at 6% as required Under Section 18 -A (Section 4 -A sic.) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.'

(3.) THE question for determination is whether the insurer can be asked to pay the penalty in question.