ORDER T.S. Doabia, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The claimants are parents of deceased Lachmi. The claimants are satisfied with the quantum of compensation which was fixed at Rs. 47,720. They however pray that penalty may also be imposed. According to them, there was a failure to make the payment within the stipulated period. According to them penalty at the rate of 50% should have been allowed. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed as under: An accident is stated to have taken place on May 30, 1987. The brakes of the truck failed. It rolled back and overturned resulting in the death of Lachmi. Claim petition was filed on September 25, 1987, It is alleged that the owner of the truck acquired the requisite knowledge immediately and under the law it should be presumed that he had the requisite notice under Section 10 of the Act. It may further be seen that the claim as orginally lodged was amended. Originally it was stated that the deceased was engaged as a cleaner but later on an amendment was allowed and deceased was described as a labourer. This amendment was allowed on December 26, 1990. Directions for paying interim maintenance was duly complied with by the Insurance Company and the amount of Rs. 15,000 was ordered to be disbursed on November 6, 1989. Payment in pursuance to the award dated January 6, 1992 has also been made. As stated above, the claimants are now claiming penalty for late payments and for this they contend that they should be paid the maximum penalty under the law. 3. The claim is opposed by the Insurance Company. According to them, no notice was served on the Insurance Company and as such the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with penalty. In any case, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that his clinets have been complying with the directions given by the Commissioner under the Act with promptness and as such the company should not be burdened with liability to pay the penalty. 4. In any case, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that his clinets have been complying with the directions given by the Commissioner under the Act with promptness and as such the company should not be burdened with liability to pay the penalty. 4. So far as the question of non-giving of notice to the Insurance Company and the consequent plea of non-payment of penalty is concerned, the same was considered by this Court from time to time and the consistent view is that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the penally. 5. In Banasidhar Munna Lal v. Ram Chandera, Vardi Chand AIR I960 MP 313, it was observed by this Court that Section 10 of the Act requires a notice of the accident to be given as soon as practicable after the happening of the accident and no cast iron rule can be laid down in regard to what is meant by 'as soon as practicable'. 6. Again in Madhva Pradesh Electricity Board v. Manto Bai (1990-I-LLJ-25), it was held that the Insurance Company cannot escape the liability. Same is the view expressed by this Court in Om Prakash v. Ram Gali 1989 ACJ 803. The Orissa High Court in Firoz Naik v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation 1991 (2) TAC 615 has come to the same conclusion. 7. All these decisions were noted in Shanti and Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. and Ors.. Misc. Appeal No. 265 of 1991 decided on March 31, 1994 wherein it was held that the Insurance Company cannot escape liability simply because notice was not issued to the Insurance Company. Notice to the owner of the vehicle is good enough. The contentions raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company are without any merit. 8. The further question is as to what should be the quantum of penalty. In this case, it has been brought on the record that the Insurance Company has been prompt in meeting the liability created under the Act from time to time. But the fact remains that the owner of the vehicle was remiss in meeting the statutory obligation created under the Act. The Insurance Company thus cannot escape the liability. It is liable to pay the penalty created under the Act. But the fact remains that the owner of the vehicle was remiss in meeting the statutory obligation created under the Act. The Insurance Company thus cannot escape the liability. It is liable to pay the penalty created under the Act. However, the fact that the claimants were not consistent in their stand and the fact that the original claim filed on Septemeber 25, 1987 was amended on December 26, 1992 is factor to be taken note of. The further fact that Insurance Company paid the interim compensation as also the final Compensation with promptness is also relevant here. Taking into consideration the circumstances referred to above, the penalty to the extent of ten percent of the amount granted by the Commissioner is considered reasonable. This would meet the ends of justice. This appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. There would be no order as to costs.