B.L. Hansaria, CJ. 1. An important point of law needs determination in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The same relates to the liability of the insurer to pay penalty visualised by Section 4-A(3) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the). 2. The question arises on these facts. The petitioner was an employee of opposite party No. 2. He was engaged as a helper in a tanker. He was involved in an accident in which he suffered severe bodily injuries. He claimed compensation as permitted by the. The Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, after a full-fledged hearing, by his award dated 3rd November, 1987, determined the amount of compensation payable at Rs. 54,460.35. He thereafter stated as below: As the vehicle in question of the O.P. No. 1 was validly insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Policy No. 3151 1/MB/233/86-Comp. covering the date of accident, the Insurance Company stated above is to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 54,460.35 immediately. As the said amount of compensation has not been deposited with one month from the date of accident by the employer, a further sum of Rs. 32,897.02 is imposed as penalty to the tune of 50% of the amount of compensation together with interest at 6% as required under Section 18- A (Section-4A sic.) of the Workmens Compensation Act. 3. The sum of Rs. 54,460.35 was paid by the insurer, but the penalty amount was not deposited either by the employer or by the insurer. The petitioner thereafter made several representations before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation to realise the penalty, but no steps having been taken, this petition has been filed. 4. The question for determination is whether the insurer can be asked to pay the penalty in question. Mr. A.K. Mohanty appearing for the insurer contends that the amount of penalty cannot be realised from this opposite party. In this connection be refers to Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Matias Burla, 1986 ACJ 732 [LQ/OriHC/1985/261] , in which a learned Single Judge of this Court, took the view that the amount awarded as penalty under Section 4-A(3) of thebeing payable by the employer, the Insurance Company is under no lia- bility to indemnify the employer in this regard. This view was taken by referring to the language of Section 4-A (3) which is as below: Whether any employer is in default in passing the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date is fell due, the Commissioner may direct that, in addition to the amount of the arrears, simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount due together with if, in the opinion of the Commissioner there is no justification for the delay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty. The learned Judge stated in paragraph 7: A bare glance at Section 4-A(3) is enough to show that it can be invoked against an employer. The use of the word, employer in this provision as distinct from the phrase any person in Sections 31 of the Act, which deals with recovery of compensation, also further confirms the view that the provision can be invoked against an employer. Being a penal provision, it is to be construed rigidly. The insurer, who takes the liability to indemnify the employer, is not the employer. 5. As against the aforesaid decision, Mr. U.C. Mohanty appearing for the petitioner has brought to our notice the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhukhan, I (1989) ACC 320 [LQ/MPHC/1988/74] =1989 ACJ 923 (MP). in which the order of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation asking the insurer to pay the penalty was upheld. The learned Judge stated in this connection as below in paragraph 9 : ...in accidents of motor vehicle, the liability to pay compensation is upon the owner of the vehicle, but whether the vehicle is insured, it is for the insurer to make good the compensation awarded in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The said liability of the insurer is covered under the provisions of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, if the liability of the insurer arises for the principal amount and the same is not deposited or paid well in time within the meaning of the provisions of Section 4A(3) of theof 1923, i.e., within a month from the date of intimation, the insurer incurs liability to pay penalty. 6. The question for our consideration is, which of the two views merits our acceptance. According to us, the mere mention about the liability being of the employer is Section 4A(3) of theis not enough to exonerate the insurer to indemnify the employer in this regard in cases of accident involving a motor vehicle which requires compulsory insurance under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. We have stated so because the primary liability of paying compensation is also fastened on the employer as would appear from Section 3(1) of the. If an insurer is liable to indemnify the employer for the latters liability to any compensation as visualised by Section 3(1) of the Act, we do not find any cogent reasons to exonerate the insurer in paying the penalty fastened on the employer because of what is stated in Section 4-A(3) of the. If the liability of the insurer arises for the principal amount, though the same is required to be paid by the employer as stated in Section 3(1) of the Act, by the same taken the insurers liability would arise to pay the penalty which is imposed on the employer because of the default in making the payment. If the employer commits the default in paying the compensation and if it was the liability of the insurer to pay the compensation in time, we are of the view that for the default in making payment, the insurer is also to suffer. The mere fact that Section 4-A(3) has spoken about employer is, therefore, not enough to exonerate the insurer. 7. In this connection we may refer with profit to the provision of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as per which it is the duty of the insurer to satisfy judgments against persons insured. As to the operation of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a case of the present nature, we have no doubt in view of what was stated by a learned single Judge os this Court (Misra, C.J., as he then was) in Bibhuti Bhusan v. Dinamani, 1982 ACJ 338. [LQ/OriHC/1981/85] This decision dealt with the liability of the insurer arising out of a case under the provisions of the following the death of a cleaner of a vehicle. The dependants of the deceased filed a case against the employer and also impleaded the Insurance Company. The Commissioner set up by the was approached for compensation. The question was whether the Commissioner could pass a decree against the Insurance Company. Referring to Section 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was held that the award had to be against the insurer with a declaration that the liability had to be satisfied by the Insurance Company. The same view was taken in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. v. Nani Bala Devi, II (1987) ACC 146 [LQ/BomHC/1986/16] =AIR 1988 Gau. 40. So, even if the penalty be imposed on the owner of the vehicle who happens to be the employer of the concerned workman, the insurer has to indemnify the employer. 8. Because of all that is stated above, we are satisfied that the insurer is liable to pay the penalty also, which is imposed under Section 4-A(3) of the. We would, therefore, ask opposite party No. 3 to pay the amount of penalty as awarded within a period of one month from today, failing which the amount shall bear interest at the rate of 12 per cent from today till recovery. The petition is allowed accordingly.