J. C. Verma, J. - (1.) This misc. appeal has been preferred by the non-petitioner No. 1 M/s. Bhata Associate Stone Co. against the judgment dated 28.2.1997 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Tribunal in Claim Application No. 4/96 by which order an amount of Rs. 49,954/- as compensation penalty and interest was ordered to be paid with future interest of 18%.
(2.) A claim application was filed by the respondent Raju S/o Gopal under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Tribunal, Kota on the ground that during the employment with the appellant under the ownership of one Surender Kumar son of Mangilal and when he was working under the instructions of the n employer on 5.7.1993 while un-loading the slabs of 'Mukassar' stone from his employers' truck bearing No. RNO 3780 one slab of stone had fallen on his right leg and he was seriously injured. He was disabled. Initially the appellant was proceeded exparte, but lateron on his application the exparte proceedings were withdrawn and he was allowed to participate in the proceedings. Even though admitting the accident, the liability was denied on the ground that it was because of negligence of the claimant that he was injured while on duty and that the truck No. RNO 3780 was insured with the United India Insurance Company and in these circumstances, if any compensation or penalty was to be paid, that should have been paid by the 20 insurance company. The Commissioner had granted an amount of Rs. 59,118/- as compensation payable by the insurance company to the claimant and further amount of Rs. 29,559/- and penalty of Rs. 20,395/- which was to be paid by the present appellant. The appellant has come up on the appeal against fixing the liability of amount of Rs. 29,559/- and Rs. 20,395/- upon it on the ground that no opportunity was granted for leading evidence about the penalty and that penalty as levelled is too excessive. It is also submitted that in the earlier exparte order the penalty levelled was 25% along with interest of 12% whereas in the present order in the same case, the penalty levelled has been raised to 50% and the interest has also been raised to 18%.
(3.) The parties have relied on a case of Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi & Others (1997) 8 SCC 1 , wherein it was held that the insurance company will not only be liable to pay the principal amount of compensation but also interest thereon, if any imposed by the Commissioner on the insured employer, but the insurance company is not liable to pay any penalty.;