- (1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Mitesh L. Rangras for the appellant. Nobody is present for the respondent No.2 though duly served, whereas, respondent No.1 though served has remained absent throughout the proceedings. Perused the record. The appellant ­ Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award dated 10.9.1993 by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Ahmedabad in W..C. Application No.52 of 1988. By such impugned judgment, the Commissioner has awarded an amount of Rs.20,269/- towards compensation for the injuries received by the original claimant ­ respondent No.1 herein while serving in Printing Press of his employer ­ respondent No.2. Since respondent No.2 has insured his liability under the Act with the appellant by contract of insurance, the Commissioner has directed the appellant ­ Insurance Company to pay such amount of compensation. However, the Commissioner has also awarded and thereby directed the appellant to pay 25% amount of compensation towards penalty, which comes to Rs.5,067/- and also awarded 6% interest on both the amounts i.e. principal amount so also on amount of penalty aggregating Rs.25,336/-.
(2.) The appellant ­ Insurance Company has challenged the award mainly for its liability to pay penalty and interest only because the award of principal amount of compensation is practically as per the statute where there is little scope to deviate from the calculation to arrive at quantum of compensation that may be payable to the victim or his heirs under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
(3.) It may be appropriate to refer the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi reported in AIR 1997 SC 3854 and also the decision in the case of Kashibhai Rambhai Patel Vs. Shanabhai Somabhai Parmar & Ors. reported in 2000 AIR SCW 4932.;