2000 INSC 0100
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                          New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

                                                           Vs.

                                                      Shiv Singh

                                       (S.S. Ahmed and D.P. Wadhwa JJ.)

                                                      21.01.2000

                                                       ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Respondent No. 2 has been served by publication, but has not put in appearance. Service on
Respondent No. 1 has been dispensed with at the request of the appellant.

3. Respondent No. 1-Shiv Singh is the driver of truck No. HYL-765 owned by Respondent No. 2
which was insured with the appellant. Respondent No. 1 after having fallen down from the insured
vehicle, approached the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for damages on account of the
injury sustained by him in his right leg and other injuries on the body. The Commissioner by his
order dated 30.4.1996 allowed the claim and held the insurance company liable to pay the
compensation. The Commissioner also held that the insurance company was liable to pay interest as
also penalty over and above the principal amount of compensation. The appeal filed thereafter by
the insurance company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act in the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana was dismissed on 26.8.1997. It is in these circumstances, the present appeal has
been filed.

4. The only question raised before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner could not have held the insurance company liable for payment of the
amount of penalty under Section 4A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. This question was
considered by this Court in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and Ors. and it was held:

24. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, it must be held that the question posed for our
consideration must be answered party in the affirmative and partly in the negative. In other words
the insurance company will be liable to meet the claim for compensation along with interest as
imposed on the insured employer by the Workmen's Commissioner under the Compensation Act on
the conjoint operation of Section 3 and Section 4A Sub-section (3) (a) of the Compensation Act. So
far as additional amount of compensation by way of penalty imposed on the insured employer by
the Workmen's Commissioner under Section 4A(3)(b) is concerned, however, the insurance
company would not remain liable to reimburse the said claim and it would be the liability of the
insured employer alone.

5. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and it is held that the appellant-insurance company is
not liable to pay the amount of penalty as determined by the Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner.