ORDER J.G. Chitre, J. 1. Heard. 2. Opponents No. 1 to 4 are the claimants. Opponents No. 5 Munawar Hussain and opponent No. 6 Shakir Hussain are the owners of vehicle involved in the accident in which Champa Lal, who was driving the said vehicle, died. 3. A claim was preferred before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Ujjain. The said Commissioner passed the Award in favour of opponents 1 to 4 and directed the Insurance Company, opponents 5 and 6 to deposit the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,01,664.00. He further directed that the opponents 1 to 4 were entitled to get interest on the said amount @ 9% per annum. He further directed that in the event of default in depositing the said amount within the prescribed time limit the claimants would be entitled to get penalty of 25% of the amount of compensation as well as the interest. 4. An application was moved by the opponents No. 1 to 4 making a prayer that the Insurance Co. and opponents No. 5 and 6 did not pay the said amount of compensation, interest within prescribed time limit and, therefore, they be saddled with the responsibility of payment of penalty as directed by the order. The said application was heard by the Commissioner and the Commissioner passed the order on 23-9-99 directing the Insurance Co., as well as the opponents No. 5 and 6 to pay the penalty @ 25%. That liability of paying the penalty is hereby assailed by Insurance Co. 5. Shri Dandwate placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vedprakash Garg v. Premi Devi and Ors., reported in 1998 ACJ 1, wherein the Supreme Court after considering the number of judgments passed by Gujrat, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Gohati, Delhi, Karnataka and Rajasthan High Courts, held that penalty amount imposed upon the insured employer would get out of the sweep of the term 'liability incurred' by the insured employer as contemplated by the proviso to Section 147(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as by the terms of the insurance policy found in provisos (b) and (c) to Sub-section (1) of Section (1) of Section II thereof. 6. 6. After this judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vedprakash's case (supra) the conflicting views taken by various High Courts have come to end and the debate on the point has come to the end. Thus, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the law of land, the order under challenge will have to be set-aside so far as imposing the liability of paying penalty so far as Insurance Co. is concerned. That much portion of the order which has been passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, stands set-aside. It is made clear that the liability to pay the penalty would be on the shoulders of opponents No. 5 and 6 which they should pay within a month. 7. Thus, the petition stands disposed off finally with no order as to cost. C.C. be granted at an early date.