[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
N.I.C.Ltd vs Smt.Hagami And Ors. (2026:Rj-Jd:8354) on 13 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8354]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2451/2011
National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Udaiput
through its Legally Constituted Authority, Divisional Office, 12
Residency Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Hagami W/o late Shri Mohan Singh.
2. Shri Hemendra Singh S/o late Shri Mohan Singh, Minor
through his natural guardian mother Smt. Hagami.
3. Shri Shankar Singh S/o Shri Bheru Singh.
4. Smt. Pani Devi W/o Shri Shankar Singh.
All residents of village Sadaran, PS Bheem, District
Rajsamand.
5. Smt. Devendra Kaur W/o Shri T.D. Bhatia, R/o W/B-74A,
Ganesh Nagar, Shanarpur, Delhi
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lokendra Singh Chundawat,
Mr. Nikhil Ajmera for
Mr. Sandeep Sarupuria
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
13/02/2026
1. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the judgment and award dated 18.02.2008 passed by
the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923,
Rajsamand in W.C. Case No.18/2006(F) whereby compensation to
the tune of Rs.5,01,731/- has been awarded to the claimants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by
the claimants i.e the wife, minor son and parents of deceased -
Mohan Singh. It was stated in the claim petition that deceased -
Mohan Singh was working as a driver under the present
respondent No.5 and, while driving truck bearing registration No.
DL-1-GB-3977, during the course of his employment got
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 03:00:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8354] (2 of 4) [CMA-2451/2011]
electrocuted, due to which, he expired. Since, the truck in
question was insured, the claim was filed against the Insurance
Company also.
3. The learned Commissioner, after considering the pleadings,
framed four issues for adjudication and subsequently while
treating the deceased under the employment of respondent No,5-
Smt. Devendra Kaur and, the vehicle being insured, has awarded
a sum of Rs.4,33,820/- as compensation, Rs.65,411/- as interest,
Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses and in all a total sum of
Rs.5,01,731/- was awarded as compensation along with
Rs.21,691/- as penalty. In case of non-payment of amount of
compensation within the stipulated time, additionally 12% interest
on the compensation amount has awarded.
4. Learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company very
fairly submits that though the appeal was filed primarily only on
two counts i.e. the direction for payment of interest as well as
penalty to the Insurance Company, however, as far as the issue of
payment of interest by the Insurance Company is concerned, since
there was no additional clause with regard to there being no
liability of the Insurance Company in the policy document, the
liability of the insurance cannot be denied by the Insurance
Company. He submits that the issue in this regard is no longer res
integra in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of "New India Assurance C. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai
Amrutbhai Modhiya & Anr." reported in AIR 2006 SC 1926 as
well as the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of "EITA India Limited v. New India Insurance
Company" S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.736/2020. He thus
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 03:00:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8354] (3 of 4) [CMA-2451/2011]
asserts that the only issue is with regard to the direction of
payment of penalty to the Insurance Company. He further submits
that such a direction cannot be passed as there is no clause with
regard to payment of penalty in the policy document and the
Insurance Company, even otherwise, cannot be held liable for
payment of penalty, which essentially is in overt act on the part of
the employee concerned. He refers to the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Ved Prakash Garg v Premi
Devi & Ors." reported in 1997(8) SC 412, as also, judgment
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of "United
India Insurance C. Ltd. v. Smt. Sira Kanwar" D.B. Civil
Misellaneous Appeal No.768/2005 wherein while considering
clause IMT-18 of the insurance policy, it was held that the
Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of the
penalty and the penalty has to be awarded against the employer
only.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to
dispute the factum of liability of payment of penalty upon the
owner and not upon the employer.
6. Considering the limited point involved and after having
perused the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of "Ved Prakash Garg (supra)" as well as judgment
passed in Division Bench in the case of "United India Insurance
C. Ltd. (supra)", there cannot be any iota of doubt with regard
to there being no liability of the Insurance Company to make the
payment of penalty as awarded by the Commissioner. The liability
of penalty cannot be saddled upon the Insurance Company in view
of the specific terms and conditions of the policy documents.
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 03:00:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8354] (4 of 4) [CMA-2451/2011]
7. In view of the above-mentioned observation, the impugned
judgment and award dated 18.02.2008 passed by the learned
Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Rajsamand in
W.C. Case No.18/2006(F) is modified only to the extent that the
liability for making the payment of amount of penalty to the tune
of Rs.21,691/- shall be upon the employer i.e. the respondent
No.5 and not upon the Insurance Company alone. Rest of the
award shall remain intact and the appellant shall make the
necessary payment as directed by the award .
8. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of
accordingly.
9. The record of the case be sent back forthwith.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
25-charul/-
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 03:00:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
