The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has jurisdiction to entertain an application and award compensation only for accidents that occur within the area for which he is appointed.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, Hyderabad dated 31-7-1992 in W. C. No. 60/91. That application was filed by the 1st respondent herein claiming compensation for the death of his son Saleem Aleem Shaik, Cleaner of a lorry No. ABT 5301, together with penalty and interest, That was filed against Sri Shaik Mahmood, the owner of the lorry, who is the 2nd respondent in this appeal and the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , who is the appellant. The learned Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, passed the order awarding compensation of Rs. 73,132. 80 paise together with penalty of 50% and interest at 6% and costs. Aggrieved by that the appellant who is the 2nd respondent before the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation field this appeal contending that the Commissioner has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application and to pass the order, since the accident took place at Bombay.

( 2 ) BEFORE considering the contentions of the appellant, I will refer to the preliminary objection taken by the contesting 1st respondent in the appeal that the appeal is not maintainable on the ground that the amount awarded was not deposited.

( 3 ) SECTION 30 (1) of the Workmen s Compensation Act reads : 30 (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely - (a) An order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment of otherwise of disallowing a claim in full or in part of a lump sum : (aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4-A (b ). . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . (d ). . . . . . . . . . (e ). . . . . . . . . The third proviso to the said sub-section reads : "provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against.

( 4 ) THE appellant has deposited before the Commissioner, the amount of compensation of Rs. 73,132. 80 at the time of filling the appeal; but did not deposit the penalty and interest. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the appellant had not deposited the entire amount as ordered by the Commissioner as such there is no compliance with the aforesaid proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act and so the appeal is not maintainable. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Insurance Company end not pay the penalty and interest and therefore the amount was not deposited and that there is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the appeal is not maintainable.

( 5 ) IN support of this contention, the learned Counsel for appellant railed upon some decisions. A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in a case reported in Kap Steel Ltd. v. R. Sasikala, 1990 II CLR 325, held that "depositing of the amount of interest or penalty imposed under Section 4-A of the Act in addition to the compensation awarded or otherwise is not a condition for preferring an appeal under Section 30 (1) of the Act". Reference was also made to a decision of the learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company v. Matias Burla, 1986 ACJ 732 Orissa, to the effect that the provision in Section 4-A for levying penalty and interest can be invoked only against the employer but not again the insurer. He has also referred to a decision of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jevaramma, 1989 I CLR 228 in which it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to meet only the compensation payable for the risk covered and not the penalty.

( 6 ) IN the case reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hasmat Khatoon, 1989 ACJ 862 Delhi, the Delhi High Court held that the Insurance Compa