Delhi High Court
Urmila Rani vs Manjit Kaur & Anr. on 20 March, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 160/2013
% 20th March, 2014
URMILA RANI ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Balraj Dewan, Adv.
VERSUS
MANJIT KAUR & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pratima N. Chauhan, Adv. for R-
1.
Mr. Rajveer Singh, Adv. for Mr.
Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the Act') impugning the order of the Commissioner dated 20.2.2012 which has passed an order of imposition of penalty under Section 4-A of the Act against the appellant-employer.
2. It is now settled law as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi & Ors. JT 197 (8) S.C. 229 that an insurance company is only liable to pay the compensation determined FAO 160/2013 Page 1 of 3 under the Act as also interest payable on the compensation under Section 4- A of the Act, but, the insurance company is not liable for penalty unless it is proved on record that the insurance policy is a comprehensive insurance policy which will make the insurance company liable besides for the compensation and the interest amount, also the liability towards penalty.
3. I have seen the reply which is filed by the appellant-employer before the Commissioner in the present proceedings under Section 4-A of the Act, and it is found that there is no defence which is taken up by the appellant- employer that appellant-employer is not liable because the policy in question is not only for liability under the Act but also for an additional liability towards penalty.
4. Accordingly, since it is not the defence of the appellant-employer that the insurance policy in the present case was such that the insurance company also took over the liability for penalty, the ratio in the case of Ved Prakash Garg (supra) squarely applies and the liability of the penalty under Section 4-A of the Act will only be upon the appellant-employer and not upon the insurance company.
FAO 160/2013 Page 2 of 3
5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
MARCH 20, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
FAO 160/2013 Page 3 of 3