1. This appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act of 1923) against the award dated 17.6.2005 passed by the Commissioner, W.C. Act, Sikar in Case No. WCC/N.F.-8/2004 titled as Bhebha Ram Vs. Navran Singh & Anr. Whereby an award of Rs. 2,12,824/- was passed in favour of claimant/respondent No.1.

2. Claimant had filed claim against the appellant and the respondent No.2 for compensation on account of loss suffered by him due to serious injury resulting into amputation of his right hand above the wrist. It was mentioned in the claim that claimant was an employee as a labourer on a tractor bearing No. R.J.-23 R-6695 and on 17.04.2003 at 2:30 A.M., when as per direction of respondent No.2, he was separating the wheat from chauff with the help of a thrasher attached with that tractor, his right hand was seriously injured resulting into amputation.

3. Insurance Company of the tractor, who is appellant before us had pleaded in the Tribunal that thrasher was not insured nor any premium was charged for the insurance of the thrasher and premium only for the driver of the tractor had been taken by the Insurance Company, so the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for the Khalasi or any other labourer working with the tractor.

4. It was further pleaded by the Insurance Company that the claimant claimed compensation in the capacity of a third party and so he could have filed claim, if any, only under the provisions of the M.V. Act and not under the provisions of the Act of 1923. It was further pleaded by the Insurance Company that tractor was insured for agriculture purposes only, but it was being used for commercial use, so the Insurance Company could not be made liable.

5. It was further pleaded by the Insurance Company that the Tribunal has also ordered that award amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and directed it to pay the amount within thirty days from the date of the award and in default the enhanced rate of interest payable has been mentioned as 12% per annum. It has been argued that penal interest could not have been imposed on the appellant Insurance Company.

6. I have heard arguments of both the parties and perused the impugned award.

7. In National Insurance Company Vs. Keshav Bahadur (2004) 2 SCC 370 it was held that Section 110 CC of the MV Act 1939 which corresponds to Section 171 of MV Act 1988 confers a discretion on the Tribunal to award interest but a stipulation for higher rate of interest in case of default virtually amounts to imposition of penalty which is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed. The stipulation for higher rate on interest provided by the Tribunal was set aside by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case. The said judgment of the Apex Court was followed by a coordinate Bench of this court also in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2356/2005 titled as National Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors. decided on 11.12.2014.

8. On the other hand, in the following cases, it has been held that no such order should be passed by the Tribunal or Court, which cannot be enforced. It has also been held that an order which is not enforceable, is like a cheque which is likely to be bounced. To enforce the timely payment of the award amount if penalty is proposed by the Tribunal in the award itself then that will be perfectly justified looking to the circumstance of the case before the Tribunal;

(1) Urmila Pandey & Ors. Vs. Khalil Ahmed & Ors. 1994 ACJ (SC) 805

(2) Haji Jenullah Khan Vs. Nagar Mahapalika 1994 (2) ACJ (SC) 493

(3) Kalawati & Ors. Vs. State of Andra Pradesh 2010 ACJ Supreme Court 1245

(4) 1986 (2) WLN Rajasthan 336 United India Insurance Company Vs. Ms. Hundi Bai

(5) Vimla Devi Vs. Laxminarayan 2003 RAR Rajasthan 160.

9. In the case in hand it was ordered by the Tribunal in award dated 17.6.2005 that within thirty days from the date of award the award amount should be deposited along with 9% simple annual interest or else the