The employer's liability to pay compensation arises as soon as the personal injury is caused to a workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, and the penalty under Section 4-A(3) should be imposed only after issuing a show cause notice to the employer.

JUDGMENT

Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J. - This appeal is filed by original respondent Nos.1 and 4, who are owners of shop complex and residential flats, situated at Jaisthambha Chowk, Paratwada, challenging judgment and award dated 3.10.2006 passed by learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Amravati in Application (WCA) No.11/2002 whereby learned Commissioner directed appellants/owners to pay compensation Rs.3,02,400/- jointly and severally also to pay amount Rs.1,51,200/- towards 50% penalty on the amount of the compensation and interest @ 12% per annum from 28. 10.2001, till the compensation amount is realized.

2. Brief facts necessary for decision of the appeal are as under:

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are dependents of deceased Jagannath Munnilal Prajapati. Appellant No.1 is husband of appellant No.2. Appellant No.2 had decided to build up a big shopping-cum-residential complex at the plot owned by appellant No.2 which was situated at Jaisthambha Chowk, Paratwada. Appellant No.1, being husband of appellant No.2, was having natural predominance over the construction work which was to be carried out in constructing of shopping-cum-residential complex. The appellants engaged respondent No.4 as Engineer to keep supervision over the construction work so also engaged respondent No.5 to be Contractor for executing construction work. The appellants also engaged labourers including deceased Jagannath Munnilal Prajapati for executing the construction work in the control and supervision of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Deceased was working in the control and supervision of respondent Nos.4 and 5 as labour on daily wages @ Rs.90/-per day and monthly he was drawing salary Rs.2700/- per month.

3. On 28.3.2001, the deceased was working on third floor of the undergoing construction of the shopping complex. He fell down from the third floor of the shopping complex and died. When the deceased fell down from the third floor of the shopping complex, labourers namely Hiralal Saket, Rambahar Prajapati, Pannalal Saket, and others were doing the work along with the deceased. On receipt of information, appellant No.2 rushed to the accident place and shifted Jagannath for treatment at Cottage Hospital, Achalpur and, thereafter, to General Hospital at Amravati. After examination, Medical Officer declared him dead.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are parents of the deceased and respondent No.3 is minor brother of the deceased. At the time of the death, the deceased was aged about 20 years and he was having sound health. The accident of the deceased took place during course of employment and in the course of employment. After the accident, respondent Nos.1 to 3 approached to appellants for compensation. However, their demand and request for payment of compensation was not considered. In fact, appellants have not responded to the demand of compensation by claimants and, therefore, claimants were constrained to send Demand Notice dated 22.5.2002 to appellants as well as the Engineer and the Contractor. The Engineer refused to receive the notice. The said notice was not replied by any of them and, therefore, claimants were constrained to file an application under Section 4 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the said Act') for grant of compensation. The claimants also claimed 50% penalty and interest @ 18% on the amount of compensation from the date of compensation fell due.

5. In response to the notice, appellants as well as respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 resisted the claim by filing written statement. Respondent No.4 filed his written statement vide Exhibit-12 and denied relationship between the deceased and him. It is contention of respondent No.4 that there was no contract between them and, therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation. Appellant No.1 also resisted the claim of claimants by filing written statement vide Exhibit- 23 and denied contentions of claimants. As per contention of appellant No.1, the deceased was working with the Contrac