The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation along with interest imposed, but not the penalty imposed under Section 4a (3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

HARI NATH TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from the judgment and award dated December 26, 1988 delivered by the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Belgaum District, Belgaum in WCA. 23/1987, awarding the claimant a total sum of Rs. 83,516. 25 paise as compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act together with interest at the rate of 6% p. a. from the date of accident upto the date of payment and providing for penalty to the tune of 25% over and above the amount of compensation awarded.

( 2 ) ON behalf of the Insurance Company, the principal contention that has been raised which had been seriously pressed before me is that the Tribunal has illegally directed the amount of interest at the rate of 6% p. a. on the amount of compensation as well as penalty assessed at the rate of 25% over the total amount of compensation to be payable by the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor vehicles Act, particularly proviso to Sub-section (1), the liability of Insurance Company to indemnify or to pay the compensation may be said to be there but only to the extent the compensation is payable under Workmen's Compensation Act or liability for compensation arising on account of accident under Workmen's Compensation Act. Learned Counsel contended that under Section 4a of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Act provides for imposition of interest and penalty being imposed by the Commissioner only on a default being committed by the employer by not making payment of compensation claimed, or atleast admitted or atleast the portion of compensation admitted on its having become due. Neither under the Insurance Policy nor under any statutory provisions of law nor under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance company can be saddled with the liability to pay nor can be said to have undertaken the liability to pay the penalty or interest imposed under Section 4a of the Act, Sri Sowriraju, learned counsel for the appellant, contended and in support of his contentions made reference to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of VED PRAKASH GARG v. PREMA DEVI, AIR 1997 SCW 3775.

( 3 ) THIS contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant has been hotly contested by Smt. Asha holding brief for Sri Gachinmath, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 - the owner of the vehicle. Learned Counsel contended that the Insurance Company had never put any appearance before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and did not raise this plea and this plea is not open to the Company to raise at this stage of appeal. Smt. Asha further contended that the vehicle was being insured and therefore all liability for payment of compensation etc. was that of the Insurance Company.

( 4 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. This is a pure question of law which relates to interpretations of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. e. Section 95, read with Section 4a of Workmen's Compensation Act. A plea of law which may affect the jurisdiction of Court or authority to impose such penalty and to fasten it on whom, being a pure question of law can be permitted to be raised -even at this stage of appeal as it does not involve any question of fact or appropriation of evidence. So this question has to be considered. Primarily the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents is really different. As regards the merits of the contentions and the question of liability of the Insurance Company it has to be taken note of that it is nobody's case that a special premium had been paid by the owner of the vehicle or by the employer here to the Insurance Company for requiring the Company to undertake to pay even the penalty imposed on the owner of the vehicle for his default under the workmen's Compensation act. There being no additional premium being paid, the liability cannot be said to arise on this groun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document