ORDER S.C. Pandey, J. 1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act) is directed against the order dated August 2, 1994, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Bhopal in Claim Case No. 7/89 (WCA), whereby the respondents No. 1 to 5 have been awarded a sum of Rs. 44,201 as compensation plus penalty of Rs. 15,000 with interest @ 6% p.a. from the day to the incident, i.e. May 5, 1989. 2. The case of the Respondents No. 1 to 5 was that the workman Gendalal was working with the respondent No. 6, M/s. Ashok Stone Crushing Company, Village Jhirnia, Thesil Hoozur, District Bhopal. During the course of employment, he died. At the time of his death, he was aged about 15 years and his monthly wages were Rs. 600. It appears that Respondent No. 6 has denied the claim of the Respondents 1 to 5. So far as Respondents No. 2 to 4 were concerned, no written statement was filed. The appellant also denied the entire allegation, made in the application. Under those circumstances the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation framed six issues. In support of her case. Respondent No. 1 was examined as a witness. No evidence was led either by the Respondent No. 6 or any other respondent. Nor did the appellant lead any evidence. In such circumstances, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation had no option, but to grant the claim of the Respondents No. 1 to 5. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation came to the conclusion that upon the death of Gendalal, the Respondents No. 1 to 5 were entitled to Rs. 44,201 by way of compeasation. It also found that the Respondents No. 6 to 9 and the appellant had not cared either to make a provisional payment to the Respondents No. 1 to 5, or to pay the entire amount of compensation due against them. Under such circumstances, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000 against the appellant as well as the Respondents No. 6 to 9. 3. In this appeal, the question that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was unaware about the employment, wages and the cause of death of Gendalal. The appellant was also unaware whether Gendalal was a workman with the Respondents No.6 to 9. 3. In this appeal, the question that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was unaware about the employment, wages and the cause of death of Gendalal. The appellant was also unaware whether Gendalal was a workman with the Respondents No.6 to 9. Therefore, no amount was deposited and they filed written statement denying the liability, and consequently the appellant cannot be held to be responsible for non payment of Rs. 44,201 as compensation when it became due. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, did dispute that the compensation became due on the death of Gendalal. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to number of decisions, viz., Sakinabibi and Anr. v. Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation 1992 ACJ 603 , Rajni Rani and Ors. v. Om Parkash and Anr. (1993-I-LLJ-619) (P&H), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jevaramma and Ors. (1994-III-LLJ (Supp.)-1036) (Kant) Oriental Fire & General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Kamarun Bibi and Anr. 1993 ACJ 171, Shanthamma and Ors. v. Kamalamma and Anr. 1993 ACJ 453 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Mujataba Khan and Anr. 1994-I-LLJ-259 (AP) and Gautam Transport, Bhavnagar v. Jiluben Huseinbhai and Ors. 1989 ACJ 587 and argued that the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation should not have awarded penalty, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. It appears to this Court that the view taken in Om Parkash v. Ramkali and Ors. 1987 ACJ 803 and Babulal v. Jassu Alias Yashwant Singh and Anr. 1995 (2) T.A.C.633 (MP) is binding on this Court to the effect that the insurer is also liable to pay penalty under Section 4A(3) of 'the Act'. This view has been followed in Misc. Appeal No. 573/1991, decided on January 13, 1997. In view of this matter, the argument that the insurer is not liable to pay penalty is not accepted. The contrary view taken in 1988 ACJ 671 (Karnataka), 1989 ACJ 587 (Gujarat), 1993 ACJ 453 (Karnataka) and (1994-I-LLJ-259) (Andhra Pradesh) cannot bind this Court. Further the argument based on 1993 ACJ 172 (Orissa) and 1992 ACJ 805 (Punjab and Haryana) that insurer or the employer should have been given an opportunity of hearing before imposition of penalty cannot be accepted. The Insurance Company was noticed in the case. It appeared before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. Further the argument based on 1993 ACJ 172 (Orissa) and 1992 ACJ 805 (Punjab and Haryana) that insurer or the employer should have been given an opportunity of hearing before imposition of penalty cannot be accepted. The Insurance Company was noticed in the case. It appeared before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. It took an open eyed stance before the Commission for workmen compensation. It failed to sustain its plea. Therefore, in the absence of any statutory provision, there is no question of giving an opportunity for imposing penalty. The insurance Company was aware of consequence of its breach and, therefore, entitled to put forth extenuating circumstances absolving it from its liability for penalty. It had the opportunity to argue its case at the time of final hearing on merits. Therefore, no question of denial of opportunity of hearing arises. The case, reported in 1992 ACJ 603 (Gujarat), cited by the learned counsel is inapplicable to the facts of the case, 5. In the opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises requiring interference by this Court with the impugned order. It appeared to the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation that the appellant had taken the specific stand to the effect that Gendalal was not the workman and the allegations made in the application were denied by the appellant. Under such circumstances, if it appeared to the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation that the appellant had no genuine defence and the case was fought over only with a view to protect the payment of compensation by the parties, he rightly imposed the penalty on all the parties. 6. There is no merit in the argument of the counsel for the appellant that the appellant did not know about the facts of this case. The very fact that the appellant filed the written statement denying the claim of the Respondents No. 1 to 5 shows that appellant had taken a stand that Gendalal was not a workman. If the appellant did not know the facts of this case, it should not have taken such a blatant stand totally denying the case of the Respondents No. 1 to 5. No application was made before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation that other Respondents No. 6 and 9 were not disclosing the true facts to the appellant. If the appellant did not know the facts of this case, it should not have taken such a blatant stand totally denying the case of the Respondents No. 1 to 5. No application was made before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation that other Respondents No. 6 and 9 were not disclosing the true facts to the appellant. If the appellant had followed this course, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation would have sympathetically considered the case of the appellant and may not have imposed a penalty on it. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, mere is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.