Avtar Singh Gandhi vs Karodilal Sen
2023 Latest Caselaw 9323 MP

                                                                1
                                    IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT JABALPUR
                                                            BEFORE
                                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                      ON THE 21 st OF JUNE, 2023
                                                     MISC. APPEAL No. 1119 of 2021

                                   BETWEEN:-
                                   AVTAR SINGH GANDHI S/O LATE SHRI HARVINDER
                                   SING GANDHI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                   BUSINESS NANAK WARD NAI BASTI BINA (MADHYA
                                   PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....APPELLANT
                                   (BY MS. RASHI DUA - ADVOCATE)

                                   AND
                                   1.    KARODILAL SEN S/O DAMRU SEN, AGED ABOUT
                                         45  YEARS, GATHOULA JAGIR TEH. KHURAI
                                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   2.    ASHA BAI W/O KARODILAL, AGED ABOUT 40
                                         YE A R S , GATHOULA JAGIR TEHSIL KHURAI
                                         DISTT.SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   3.    POOJA W/O KARODILAL, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
                                         OCCUPATION:   MINOR    THROUGH      THEIR
                                         NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER KARODILAL
                                         GATHOULA JAGIR TEHSIL KHURAI DISTT.SAGAR
                                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   4.    ANIL S/O KARODI LAL, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
                                         OCCUPATION:   MINOR     THROUGH      THEIR
                                         NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER KARODILAL
                                         GATHOULA JAGIR TEHSIL KHURAI DISTT. SAGAR
                                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   5.    DINESH S/O LARODILAL, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
                                         OCCUPATION:    MINOR    THROUGH      THEIR
                                         NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER KARODILAL
                                         GATHOULA JAGIR TEHSIL KHURAI DISTT.SAGAR
Signature Not Verified
  SAN                                    (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   6.    THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. SAGAR
Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Date: 2023.06.21 19:02:54 IST
                                         INFRONT OF RAILWAY STATION SAGAR
                                                                         2
                                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                                   (BY SHRI DINESH KAUSHAL - ADVOCATE)

                                         This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                                   following:
                                                                         ORDER

This appeal is filed by the employer under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 being aggrieved with the award dated 22.02.2021 passed in Case No.COCB No.09/2017 (WCF) by the Commissioner Workman Compensation, Labour Court, Sagar whereby penalty of 15% on the amount of compensation has been imposed on the appellant.

The Labour Court awarded the penalty on the appellant - employer for non-compliance of provision of Section 4A of the Workmen Comensation Act.

Shri Dinesh Kaushal, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that no indulgence can be shown in view of the provision of Section 4A of Employees Compensation Act, 1923. employer was required to pay penalty on the amount of compensation so derived by him within 30 days of intimation of the incident. Since that amount has not been paid and default is that of the employer, therefore, the penalty is to be imposed on the employer and not on the insurance company. Shri Kaushal has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi , AIR 1997 SC 3854 wherein it has been held that insurance company is not liable to pay penalty and the penalty is payable by the employer because for his default compensation could not be deposited in time.

Signature Not Verified SAN In view of such judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court if the impugned

Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA award is examined, there is no illegality in the same calling for interference. Date: 2023.06.21 19:02:54 IST

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ks

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2023.06.21 19:02:54 IST