ORDER B.L. Hansaria, C.J. - In important point of law needs' determination in this application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution the same relates to the liability of the insurer to pay penalty'- Visualised by Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act"). 2. The question arises on these facts.. The petitioner was an employee of opp, party No, 2. He was engaged as a helper in a tanker. He was involved in an accident in which he suffered severe, bodily injuries. He claimed compensation as permitted by the Act. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation after a full fledged hearing, by his award dated 3rd November, 1987, determined the amount of compensation payable at Rs. 54, 460. 35. He thereafter stated as below: "As the vehicle in question of the O.P. No. I was validly insured with the Oriental- Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Policy No. 31511/MB/- 233/86-Comp. covering the date of accident, the Insurance Company stated above is to pay the amount of- compensation of Rs. 54460.35 immediately. As the said amount of compensation has not been deposited' within the month from the date of accident by the employer, a further sum of Rs. 32, 897.02 is imposed as penalty to the tune of of 50% of the amount of compensation together with interest at 6% as required u/s 18-A (Section 4-A sic.) of the Workmen's Compensation Act." 3. The sum of Rs. 54,460.35 was paid by the insurer, but the penalty amount was not deposited either by the employer or by the insurer. The petrtioner thereafter made several representations before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to realise the penalty; but no steps having been taken, this petition has been filed. 4. The question for determination is whether the insurer can be asked to pay the penalty in question. 5. Shri A. K, Mohanty appearing for the insurer contends that the amount of penalty cannot be realised from this opposite party. In this connection he refers to Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Matias Burla 1986 AC 732 in which a learned singl Judge of this Court took the view that the amount awarded as penalty u/s 4-A(3) of the Act being payable by the employer, the Insurance Company is under no liability to indemnify the employer in this regard. Ltd v. Matias Burla 1986 AC 732 in which a learned singl Judge of this Court took the view that the amount awarded as penalty u/s 4-A(3) of the Act being payable by the employer, the Insurance Company is under no liability to indemnify the employer in this regard. This view was taken by inferring to the language of Section 4-A(3) which is as below : "Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner may direct that, in addition to the amount of the arrears, simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount due together with, if in the opinion of the Commissioner there is no justification for the delay, a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty." The learned Judge stated in paragraph 7 : "A bare glance at Section 4-A(3) is enough to show that it can be invoked against-an employer. The use of the word' employer' in this provision as distinct from the phrase 'any person' in Section 31 of the Act, which deals with recovery of compensation, also further confirms the view that the provision" can be invoked against as employer. Being a penal provision, it is to be construed rigidly. The insurer, who takes the liability to indemnify the employer, is not the employer." 6. As against the aforesaid decision, Shri U. C. Mohanty appearing for the petitioner has -brought to our notice the judgment of a learned' single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bhukhan and Others, in which the order of the Commissioner for workmen's compensation asking the insurer to pay the penalty was upheld; The learned Judge stated in this connection as below in paragraph 9 : "......in accidents of motor vehicle, the liability to pay compensation is upon the owner of the vehicle, but where the vehicle is insured, it is for the insurer to make good the compensation awarded in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The said liability of the insurer is covered under the provisions of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said liability of the insurer is covered under the provisions of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore if the liability of the insurer arises for the principal amount and the same is not deposited or paid well in time within the meaning of the provisions of Section 4-A(3) of the Act of 1923, i.e., within a month from the date of intimation, the insurer incurs liability to pay penalty." 7. The question for our consideration is, which of the two views merits our acceptance. According to us, the mere mention about the liability being of the employer in Section 4-A(3);. of the Act is not enough to exonerate the insurer ; to indemnify -, the employer in this regard in cases of accident involving a motor vehicle which requires compulsory insurance under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act; 1939. ; We have stated to because the primary liability of paying compensation is also fastened on the employer would appear from Section 3(1) of the Act. If an insurer is liable to indemnify the employer for the latter's liability to pay compensation as visualised by Section 3(1) of the Act, we do not find any cogent reason to exonerate the insurer in paying the penalty fastened on the employer because of what is stated in Section 4-A(3) of the Act. If the liability of the insurer arises for the principal amount, though the same is required to be paid by the employer as stated in Section 3(1) of the Act, by the name taken, the insurer's liability would arise to pay the penalty which ho imposed on the employer because of the default in making the payment. If the employer commits the default in paying the compensation and if it was the liability of the insurer to pay compensation in time, we are of the view that for the default in making payment, the insurer is also to suffer. The mere fact that Section 4-A(3) has spoken about 'employer' is, therefore, not enough to exonerate the insurer. 8. In this connection we may refer with profit to the provision of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as per which it is the duty of the insurer to satisfy judgments against persons insured. The mere fact that Section 4-A(3) has spoken about 'employer' is, therefore, not enough to exonerate the insurer. 8. In this connection we may refer with profit to the provision of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as per which it is the duty of the insurer to satisfy judgments against persons insured. As to the oppression of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act in a case of the present nature, we have no doubt in view of what was stated by a learned single Judge of this Court (Mishra, C.J. as he then was) in Shanker Rao Vs. Babulal Fouzdar and Another. This decision deuit with the liability of the insurer arising out of a case under the Provisions of the Act following the death of a cleaner of a vehicle. The dependants of the deceased filed a case against the employer and also impleaded the Insurance Company. The Commissioner set up by the Act was approached for compensation. The question was whether the Commissioner could pass a decree against the Insurance Company. Referring to Sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was held that the award had to be against the insurer with a declaration that the liability had to be satisfied by the Insurance Company. The same view was taken in Oriental Firs 'and General Insurance Co. v. Nani Bala Devi, AIR 1988 Gauhati 40. So, even if the penalty be imposed on the owner of the vehicle who happens to be the employer of the concerned workman, the insurer has to indemnify the employer. 9. Because of all that is stated above, we . are satisfied that the insurer its .liable to pay the penalty also, which is imposed u/s 4-A(3) of the,Act. We would, therefore, ask opp. party No 3 to pay the amount of penalty .as awarded within a period of one month from today, tailing which the amount shall bear interest at the rate of 12 percent from today till recovery. The petition is allowed accordingly. D.M. Patnaik, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Allowed