JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants have preferred this appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 21.8.1995 passed by the Commissioner under the Act in claim case no. 2/94. 2. The claimants filed a claim petition before the Commissioner under the above Act on 31.10.1994 with the allegations that Prabhusingh deceased was appointed as driver by the appellants-non-petitioners on 20.9.1993. While Prabhusingh was driving Bus of the RSRTC, RJ/14 /P/1097, it collided with Tractor HYK 3922. As a result of the above accident, Prabhusingh sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to such injuries. At the time of death Shri Prabhusingh was working with the appellants and met with an accident out of and in the course of his such employment. The appellants are all dependents. It was further averred that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,200/- per month and was aged 35 years at the time of his death. The above Bus was seized but the appellants got it released from the Police. The petitioner also stated that the appellants assured to satisfy their claim but it was not done so. The claimants laid a claim of Rs. 94,585.80 p. and prayed that the same may be allowed. 3. The appellant-non-petitioners filed reply on 28.3.1995 and admitted the Prabhusingh died as a -result of the above accident on 20.9.1993. The appellants-non-petitioners, however, alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the above tractor. Hence, the appellants were not liable for the above claim. The appellants also disputed the wages of Prabhusingh. It was also stated that the services of Prabhusingh were terminated on 20.9.1993 as a result of his death. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner framed the following ssues. 1. whether deceased Prabhusingh was working as driver with the RSRTC on monthly salary of Rs. 1,200/- ? 2. whether Prabhusingh died as a result of the above accident arising out of and in the course of his employment ? 3. whether the above accident occurred on account of the rash and negligence of the tractor driver ? 4. whether the claimants are not entitled to get compensation ? 5. whether Prabhusingh was of 35 years at the time of death ? 6. whether the claimants were entitled to get compensation of Rs. 3. whether the above accident occurred on account of the rash and negligence of the tractor driver ? 4. whether the claimants are not entitled to get compensation ? 5. whether Prabhusingh was of 35 years at the time of death ? 6. whether the claimants were entitled to get compensation of Rs. 94,585.80 p. including interest and penalty ? 7. Relief. 5. The parties led evidence. The learned Commissioner held that Prabhusingh was earning Rs. 40/- as daily wages. This fact was admitted by Shri Om Prakash, Legal Assistant of the appellants. The learned Commissioner held that Prabhusingh died on account of the above accident arising out of and in the course of such employment and that the claimants were entitled to compensation. The learned Commissioner did not hold that the driver of the tractor was negligent. The age of the deceased was held to be 35 years at the time of death. The learned Commissioner further held that the appellants had due notice of the accident immediately after its occurrence and it was their duty to have satisfied the claim of the claimants but they unreasonably withheld payment. He, therefore, awarded the maximum penalty and also interest 6%. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has very vehemently assailed that the learned Commissioner was not correct in giving a finding that the driver of the tractor was not negligent. No notice of the accident was given to the appellants. The learned Commissioner was not justified in levying the maximum penalty in the case. It is a cardinal principle of natural justice that no adverse order should be passed against the party Unless a notice of the impending action is given to such party. In the instant case, before levying the above penalty, the Commissioner did not give any notice to the appellants to show cause why penalty be not imposed. Thus, the Commissioner violated the principles of natural justice and"equity. Hence, the penalty levied must be set aside. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Madan Gopal & Ors. v. Anandilal & Ors., 1991(II) WLC 335 , Rajni Rani & Ors. v. Om Prakash & Anr., 1992 ACJ 805 and Oriental Insurance Co. v. Jevaramma & Ors., 1988 ACJ 671 . Thus, the Commissioner violated the principles of natural justice and"equity. Hence, the penalty levied must be set aside. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Madan Gopal & Ors. v. Anandilal & Ors., 1991(II) WLC 335 , Rajni Rani & Ors. v. Om Prakash & Anr., 1992 ACJ 805 and Oriental Insurance Co. v. Jevaramma & Ors., 1988 ACJ 671 . Learned counsel has also submitted that the learned Commissioner imposed the maximum penalty without assigning any reason for levying the penalty much less the maximum penalty. 8. No notice under section 10(1) of the Act was given to the appellants. Such a notice was a condition precedent for taking cognizance of the application filed by the claimants. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that as soon as the above accident occurred, the officers of the appellants were apprised of the occurrence. Hence, there was a due notice of the above accident to the appellants immediately after the occurrence. When such a notice was received by the appellants, they cannot make complaint that no notice u /s. 10(1) of the Act was given. Regarding the penalty, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that it is erroneous to contend that no notice for imposition of penalty was given to the appellants. A specific issue regarding penalty has been struck by the learned Commissioner and in para 6 of the order, the learned Commissioner has given cogent reasons for levying the maximum penalty. He submitted that the action of the appellants was devoid of human compassion. It was lega obligation of the appellants to suo mob() satisfy the claim of the claimants and it was no difficult to ascertain the same because the age and the wages of the deceased were no in dispute. He, therefore, distinguished the above rulings. 10. I have considered the arguments. It may be stated that in the above accident, the bus of the appellant was involved. It is not denied that a police case was registered in respect of this occurrence and after some time the appellants got the above bus released from the Police. The appellants have also not denied that such an accident occurred. Hence, when the employer had the knowledge of the accident soon after its occurrence, the claim of the claimants cannot be rejected on the ground that there was delay in serving the notice on the employer. The appellants have also not denied that such an accident occurred. Hence, when the employer had the knowledge of the accident soon after its occurrence, the claim of the claimants cannot be rejected on the ground that there was delay in serving the notice on the employer. 1, therefore, find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no notice was given by the claimants to the appellants regarding the above accident. 11. I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the tractor driver. There is no evidence to this effect and building up an argument without any foundation is meaningless. 12. Now, I deal with the notice and penalty. In Oriental Insurance Co. v. Jewaramma (supra), it was held by the Karnataka High Court that penalty under section 4- A(3) of the Act cannot be imposed merely as a matter of course but the discretion to levy a penalty must be exercised judiciously and after due consideration of the relevant circumstances; this also presupposes an opportunity to be given to the Insurance Co. to explain the circumstances for the delay which entails material consequences. 13. Similarly, in Rajni Rai v. Om Prakash's case, Punjab & Haryana High Court, while interpreting Section 4- A(3) of the Act held that before imposition of penalty, a show cause notice must be issued. Hence, unless the employer is called upon to show cause for the delayed payment, it is not reasonably possible for the Commissioner to come to the conclusion whether or not there was any justification for the delay; obligation on the part of the Commissioner to hear the party adversely affected is clearly implicit in the provision, for own can be condemned unheard. 14. The same question came up before this Court in Madan Gopal & Anr. v. Anandi Lal, 1991(II) WLC 335 . After reviewing the decisions of other High Courts, it was observed : "Section 4-A of the Act, thus, casts a duty upon the employer to pay the compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman and if he disputes his liability or the amount of the compensation then, according to sub-section. After reviewing the decisions of other High Courts, it was observed : "Section 4-A of the Act, thus, casts a duty upon the employer to pay the compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman and if he disputes his liability or the amount of the compensation then, according to sub-section. (2) he can make such payment or deposit it with the compensation, as the case may be, without prejudice to the rights of the workman, but if the amount is not paid and the employer commits default in paying the compensation, then the simple interest (ii) Rs. 6% per annum on the amount due together with the penalty, not exceeding 50% of such amount." 15. From the above, it is clear that since the question of imposition of penalty is involved, law requires that the employer must be served with a notice to show cause as to why penalty be not imposed. Unless such a notice is issued, the question of imposition of penalty does not arise.Imposition of penalty without notice would violate the principles of natural justice and equity. 16. If we examine the fact of the instant case, the relevancy of such an argument would not arise. The learned Commissioner while framing issues, raised issue No. 6 specifically regarding the imposition of penalty and interest. Hence, the argument of 'the learned counsel for the appellants is without substance that no notice was given to the appellants. There is also no basis for arguing that the learned Commissioner imposed penalty without any reasons. A perusal of para 6 of the impugned order would show that the learned Commissioner was alive to the pathetic condition of the claimants who were dependents and it was the legal obligation of the appellants to provide succour to such claimants without any delay. Since the appellants failed to comply with the duty, he thought it proper to impose the maximum penalty. It is thus clear that the learned Commissioner before levying the maximum penalty gave certain reasons for doing so. I am not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Commissioner in imposing the maximum penalty. 17. No other point was raised. I, therefore, find no substance in appeal and it is her,.by dismissed.Appeal Rejected. *******