National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Prem Chand & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 5432 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Prem Chand & Ors on 11 March, 2024

FAO No.1528 of 1992 1
2024: PHHC:034123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.128 FAO No.1528 of 1992
Date of Decision: 11.03.2024

National Insurance Co. Ltd. .... Appellant
Versus

Prem Chand and others ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHITYA

Present: Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.
3 2k 3

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against

order dated 17.06.1992 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, inter alia, directing both the respondents, i.e., the Employer as well as the Insurer, to pay €5,000 each as lump sum amount by way of penalty and interest. They have been burdened with this amount because despite the accident having taken place in November 1987, neither of them took any concrete step to pay the amount of compensation to the applicants. On the contrary, they persisted with their rigid stand that Pawan Kumar/deceased had not died during the course of his employment.

2. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Insurance Company was burdened with an amount of %5,000 without quantifying as to how much of it is payable by way of penalty and how much by way of interest. Therefore, the order is not sustainable, as the Insurance Company is only liable to pay the penalty, and cannot be burdened with interest.

3. The impugned order, passed way back in the year 1992, already

MANINDER

[attest to the accuracy stands complied with. The amount of 5,000, that the Insurance Company autnenticity ol Is

order/judgment.

2024: PHHC:034123

was liable to pay on account of penalty and interest, has also been deposited. Merely because the amount has not been quantified between penalty and interest, it cannot be a ground to challenge the same especially when, concededly, the Insurance Company can be burdened with penalty. Not quantifying the amount separately would mean, it can be either penalty or interest, which already stands deposited. Accordingly, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the award.

4. Appeal stands dismissed.

5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of

as having been rendered infructuous.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA) JUDGE 11.03.2024 Maninder Whether speaking/reasoned --_: Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No