JUDGMENT
T.S. Doabia, J.
1. Babulal was working as a labourer in truck bearing No MPH 7175 This truck met with an accident on July 5.1987. In (his accident the appellant lost his right hand. The Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act”), came to the conclusion that the appellant had suffered disability to the extent of 80 per cent, for this, he relied on the Table provided in the Act and fixed compensation at Rs. 14,332/-.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this is a case where the disability is 100 per cent and, therefore, the quantum of compensation should be increased. I am of the view that this argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. 5 The disability has been clearly indicated in the Schedule and this disability statutorily laid down has been taken note of. Thus, no exception can be taken with regard to the quantum of compensation.
3. The further argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that this was a case where penalty to the extent of 50 per cent should have been allowed. According to the learned counsel, there was failure on the part of the employer to pay the compensation 15 and provisions of Section 4A of the Act are attracted, it has been further argued mat as there was failure on the part of the employer, vicarious liability of the insurance company would be there. For this delayed payment, penalty is being claimed. According to the 20 learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, the insurance company cannot be fastened with the liability of penalty. This matter was considered by this court in Shanti v. New India Assurance Company Limited M.A. No.265 of 1991; decided on March 31, 1994. It was observed.
“…It may be seen that the view of this court is that insurance company is liable to pay not only penalty but interest as well. I am bound by the view expressed by this court and follow the same. The decision of this court which was followed by the Orissa High Court may be noticed below. The order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Court was upheld in the case of Divisional Engineer, M.P. Electricity Boards Mantobai, 1989 ACJ 498 (MP).
By relying upon the decision of the court, the Orissa High Court in Khiroad Nayak v. Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, 1992 ACJ 76 (Orissa), came to the conclusion that the insurer is liable to pay the penalty which is imposed under Section 4-A(3) of the Act.”
4. With regard to the payment of penalty and interest the consistent view is that where an employer fails to deposit the compensation amount within the stipulated period then he is liable to pay the penalty as well as interest, [See Jayamma v. Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Madhugiri, 1982 ACJ 361 (Karnataka).
Thus, the grievance made by the counsel for the insurance company cannot be sustained.
5. Accordingly, I am of the view that the appellant workman would be entitled to penalty. This is fixed at 25 per cent.
6. This appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The appellant would also be entitled to interest.