Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt.Krishna Devi And Another vs Sh.Ravinder Singh And Another on 12 March, 2012
FAO No.1427 of 1996(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
FAO No.1427 of 1996(O&M)
Smt.Krishna Devi and another
... Appellants
Versus
Sh.Ravinder Singh and another
... Respondents
AND
FAO No.2002 of 1996(O&M)
The United India Insurance Company Limited
... Appellant
Versus
Smt.Krishna Devi and others
... Respondents
Date of Decision: March 12, 2012
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present: Mr.Ravinder Malik, Advocate for Mr.S.P.Laler,
Advocate for the claimants.
Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for respondent No.2 -
United India Insurance Company Limited.
NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)
Mahinder Singh, aged 25 years, was killed in a vehicular accident on October 10, 1993 while on the steering wheel of car No.DNB-3546, owned by Ravinder Singh, with whom he was working as a driver. The accident took place near PWD Rest House, Ghauranda, District Karnal.
FAO No.1427 of 1996(O&M) [2]2. Widow and minor son of Mahinder Singh filed application under 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (as amended up-to-date by Act 4 of 1986) (for short `the old Act') before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Karnal (for short `the Commissioner').
3. The Commissioner vide judgment dated January 23, 1996 awarded an amount of Rs.1,21,820/- (including penalty of Rs.26,029/-) to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, as per the provisions of Section 4 of the old Act. The insurer - United India Insurance Company was held liable to pay the entire compensation amount.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment, the claimants have filed FAO No.1427 of 1996 seeking enhancement of the compensation, whereas, the United India Insurance Company has filed FAO No.2002 of 1996 challenging the judgment on the point of its liability to pay the penalty of Rs.26,029/-.
5. So far as the appeal filed by the claimants is concerned, the Commissioner considering the age of the deceased to be 25 years and holding his holding his salary at Rs.1000/- per month, adopted the formula provided in Section 4 (1) of the Act and assessed the compensation at Rs.86,764/- (1000 x 40 x 216.91 /
100) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as per Section 4-A(3) of the old Act.
6. In considered opinion of this Court, the Commissioner assessed the compensation strictly in accordance with the provisions of the old Act and as such, the same requires no interference.
7. Coming now to the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, it has been settled that insurer would not be liable for the amount of penalty. Reference can profitably be made to Ved Prakash Garg vs. Premi Devi and others, (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically ruled that liability to pay the penalty would be of the FAO No.1427 of 1996(O&M) [3] insured - employer alone and not the insurer. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashibhai Rambhai patel vs. Shahabhai Somabhai Parmar and others, 2000(2) RSJ 344.
8. Above being the legal position, the Commissioner erred in holding the Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of penalty, that is Rs.26,029/- to the claimants.
9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has informed this Court that the Insurance Company has already paid the entire amount to the claimants.
10. In view of above:-
(i) FAO No.1427 of 1996 is dismissed finding no scope for enhancement in the amount of compensation.
(ii) FAO No.2002 of 1996 is allowed partly and the impugned judgment is modified to the extent that United Insurance Company was not liable to pay the penalty.
The Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the amount of penalty (Rs.26,029/-) from Ravinder Singh, owner of Maruti Car No.DNB-3546.
March 12, 2012 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE