IMPORTANT POINT
The issue of imposing a penalty for default in paying compensation arises only after the main claim for compensation is determined by the competent Authority.

JUDGMENT

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

1. This judgment shall decide an appeal preferred by the appellant/employer under Section 30(1) (aa) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [The Act] r/w Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] for setting aside the impugned judgment-cum-order dated 21.03.2018, whereby the learned Commissioner, Employee's Compensation imposed a penalty upon the appellant, in terms of Section 4A(3)(b) of The Act.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Briefly stated that one workman, Pappu Kamti, died in the course of his employment as a driver of the truck, which is owned by the respondent No.1 and was insured by the insurance policy issued by the respondent No.2. A claim petition was filed by his wife/widow and four children bearing No. WCD299/North-West/15/238 dated 26.03.2018. After due enquiry, it was decided vide judgment-cum- award dated 30.01.2017, whereby the respondent No.2 i.e. M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 8,31,920/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 08.08.2015 till date of actual payment to the claimants.

3. Subsequently, the present complaint WCD299/North- West/15/238 dated 26.03.2018, was filed by the wife/widow of the deceased against employer/respondent No.1, as well as respondent No.2/Insurance Company, for consideration of imposition of penalty upon them in terms of Section 4A(3)(b) of The Act. This penalty is for the default in paying the compensation to the claimant on the death of her husband in the course of employment within one month from the date it fell due on them. The main challenged before the learned Compensation Commissioner by the respondent/employer, who is now the appellant, was that no independent proceedings can be launched for imposition or payment of penalty, as the said aspect was a part and parcel of the earlier judgment-cum-award dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee's Compensation. The appellant relied on the decision in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Raju, FAO 327/2016, decided on 27.10.2017.

4. The Learned Commissioner, Employee's Compensation referred to a preamble of the Act besides Section 3, 4, 10,10(A),10(B), 11, 17 and 19 of the Act, and it was observed that the Act was a piece of social beneficial legislature and has to be construed liberally in favour of the claimant. Holding that provisions of CPC are not applicable to the Act besides holding that the decision in Delhi Development Authority v. Raju was per incuriam, in view of the judgment of the State of Mysore v. SS. Makapur, AIR 1963 SC 375, besides Engineering Mazdoor Sabha & Anr. v. Hind Cycles Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 874, and the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Puran Lal & Ors., FAO No. 385/2013, the claim was allowed and it would be relevant to reproduce the operative part of the impugned judgment-cum-award dated 21.03.2018, wherein the following observations are made:

"28. From the above discussion I am of the opinion that Commissioner under the Act can issue show cause notice for imposition of penalty even suo moto i.e. even when the Claimants has not prayed for payment of penalty in their claim petition and the employer could not be excused from payment of penalty only because Claimant has not claimed the same in the claim petition as the principle of waiver/acquiescence is not applicable under the Act and also in a case where in the main order allowing the claim petition no order on prayer of the claimant for imposition of penalty upon the Respondents is passed. Otherwise also the facts of this case are different. In this case the Claimant has prayed for imposition of penalty upon the Respondents and it is a different matter that my Ld. Predecessor who passed the award granting compensation did not deal with said prayer of the Claimant in the award dated 30.01.2017. Consequently, the Claimant has been compelled to move another application dated 02.06.2017 for imposition of penalty upon the