Urmila Rani vs Manjit Kaur & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 1490 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No. 160/2013
%                                              20th March, 2014
URMILA RANI                                                ......Appellant
                          Through:       Mr. Balraj Dewan, Adv.


                          VERSUS

MANJIT KAUR & ANR.                                        ...... Respondents
                  Through:               Ms. Pratima N. Chauhan, Adv. for R-
                                         1.

                                         Mr. Rajveer Singh, Adv. for Mr.
                                         Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employee's

Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the Act') impugning the order of the

Commissioner dated 20.2.2012 which has passed an order of imposition of

penalty under Section 4-A of the Act against the appellant-employer.


2.    It is now settled law as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi & Ors. JT 197 (8) S.C. 229 that

an insurance company is only liable to pay the compensation determined


FAO 160/2013                                                                 Page 1 of 3
 under the Act as also interest payable on the compensation under Section 4-

A of the Act, but, the insurance company is not liable for penalty unless it is

proved on record that the insurance policy is a comprehensive insurance

policy which will make the insurance company liable besides for the

compensation and the interest amount, also the liability towards penalty.


3.    I have seen the reply which is filed by the appellant-employer before

the Commissioner in the present proceedings under Section 4-A of the Act,

and it is found that there is no defence which is taken up by the appellant-

employer that appellant-employer is not liable because the policy in question

is not only for liability under the Act but also for an additional liability

towards penalty.


4.    Accordingly, since it is not the defence of the appellant-employer that

the insurance policy in the present case was such that the insurance company

also took over the liability for penalty, the ratio in the case of Ved Prakash

Garg (supra) squarely applies and the liability of the penalty under Section

4-A of the Act will only be upon the appellant-employer and not upon the

insurance company.




FAO 160/2013                                                                Page 2 of 3
 5.    In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and the same is

therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




MARCH 20, 2014                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib