JUDGMENT Heard learned Counsel Sri Somashekar for the appellant. 2. The only point involved in this appeal is whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in imposing penalty on the employer when there is a policy in force as on the date of the accident. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner could have waived the penalty being imposed and no reasons are given for not doing so. It was further submitted as the vehicle in question was covered with an insurance policy which was in force, the Commissioner could have imposed the penalty on the insurer but not on the employer. 3. Having regard to the above submission and after perusing the order of the Commissioner, I do not find any merit in the contention put forward. So far as the imposing of penalty is concerned, the law is settled by this Court in a decision rendered in the case of Oriental Insurance Company v Smt. Jevaramma and Others. In the said case, the Division Bench has observed at paragraph 7, thus: "7. There is another important question to be considered in this case. It is, whether the insurer is liable to pay penalty when the insurance policy is taken to cover specifically and only the risk of injury or death of the insured. On careful examination, we are of the opinion that the Insurance Company is liable to meet only the compensation payable for the risk covered and not the penalty unless the terms of the policy specifically include payment of penalty also. Penalty is not a necessary part of compensation. Compensation is pecuniary damages payable in respect of the damage or injury caused including death. But penalty is material reparation payable for breach of duty to pay the compensation within the statutory period prescribed under the Act. Penalty is distinctly different from compensation. In the instant case, we find that there is no specific term or condition in the insurance policy which binds the Insurance Company to pay penalty apart from compensation. We are of the Opinion that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the penalty in the instant case". 4. In the light of the aforesaid position of law as laid down by this Court in the ruling referred to above, there is no merit in the submission that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the penalty. We are of the Opinion that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the penalty in the instant case". 4. In the light of the aforesaid position of law as laid down by this Court in the ruling referred to above, there is no merit in the submission that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the penalty. So far as the submission concerning the Commissioner not waiving the penalty is concerned, the ruling referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellant was rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereas the decision referred to by me is by a Division Bench of this Court. 5. In the result, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.