1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Premal S. Rachh for M/s. Thakkar Associates for appellant employer, learned Advocate Mr. UT Mishra for respondents no.1,2 and learned Advocate Mr. Barot for learned Advocate Ms. Avani S. Mehta for respondent NO.3.

2. Through this appeal, appellant has challenged judgment rendered by learned Ex Officio Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Jamnagar in WC (Fatal) Case No.37 of 2000 Exh. 70 dated 16.5.2006 wherein Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has exonerated respondent no.3 insurance company while deciding issue no. 5A and 5B and ordered that entire amount of compensation with penalty and interest is to be paid by employer as directed by Commissioner.

3. While admitting this appeal, this Court passed following order on 23rd April, 2007:

âS Ms. Pahwa, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that initially the appellant has deposited an amount of Rs.2,18,470/- by Demand Draft dated 13.4.2007 and subsequently, a further sum of Rs.2,30,809/- has been deposited by way of penalty and interest as ordered by the learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Jamnagar. Thus, they have complied with the statutory requirements as required to be complied with under Section 30(1) and the proviso thereto of the Workmen Compensation Act.

Admit.

Office is directed to call for the Records & Proceedings of the Workman Compensation (Fatal) Case No. 37 of 2000 from the learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Judge Labour Court, Jamnagar, so as to reach this Court on or before 13.6.2007.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, Office is directed to notify this First Appeal for the final hearing on 20th June, 2007.âý

1. Thus, considering statement made by learned Advocate on behalf of appellant that appellant has deposited an amount of Rs.2,18,470 by Demand Draft d ated 13.4.2007 and subsequently a further sum of Rs.2,30,809.00 by way of penalty and interest as ordered by learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Jamnagar, appeal was admitted by this Court on 23.4.2007.

2. Learned Advocate Mr. Rachh for appellant has raised contention that the WC Commissioner has committed gross error in deciding issue No. 5A and 5B against appellant by exonerating insurance company. He submitted that learned Commissioner ought to have held that insurance company is liable to indemnify insured employer with effect from the date on which premium was paid by appellant and accepted by insurance company. As per his submission, that aspect was totally ignored by claims tribunal while examining matter and, therefore, matter would require interference of this Court.

3. As against that, learned Advocate Mr. Barot appearing for learned Advocate Ms. Avani S. Mehta for respondent no.3 insurance company has vehemently submitted that insurance policy was issued by insurance company on 28th March, 2000, meaning thereby, liability was accepted by company on 28th March, 2000 and not prior to that period because it was not a contract arrived at between parties prior to 28th March, 2000 therefore, learned Commissioner was right in exonerating insurance company. He also raised contention that merely because premium was accepted without any contract on 22nd March, 2000, it would not create any liability against insurance company to pay compensation till issuance of policy, which was issued on 28th March, 2000 and accident took place on 25th March, 2000 on which date, policy of insurance was not in force and, therefore, learned commissioner was right in exonerating insurance company. Except these submissions, no other submission was made by learned Advocate Mr. Barot and no decision was cited by him in support of submissions recorded hereinabove.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. UT Mishra appearing for respondents original claimants has submitted that respondents claimants are entitled for amount of compensation for which appellant has timely paid amount of premium to insurance company and, therefore, insurance compa