New Delhi, Oct. 22 -- The Supreme Court has come down hard on insurance companies for filing needless appeals in workmen's compensation cases on technical grounds even when they do not dispute their liability under insurance contracts -- a practice, it said, only delayed justice for injured workers or their families. A bench of justices Manoj Misra and N Kotiswar Singh imposed a Rs.50,000 cost on The New India Assurance Company Ltd, calling its appeal before the Calcutta high court "unnecessary" and holding that it caused undue delay in the payment of compensation to a driver who had suffered injuries while on duty. "We must express our anguish at the practice of insurance companies unnecessarily filing appeals by raising technical pleas more so when they do not deny their ultimate liability under the contract of insurance," said the bench, directing that the penalty be paid to the claimant within a month. The court restored the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (West Bengal), who had directed the insurer to pay Rs.2.58 lakh with 12% annual interest to the injured worker. The Calcutta high court had modified that order in 2015, shifting the liability to the employer with a right of reimbursement from the insurance company. The bench further criticised the high court for adopting a "hyper-technical approach" when there was no dispute over the insurer's liability, saying such reasoning defeats the social welfare objective of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (earlier the Workmen's Compensation Act). "The object of the Act is not merely to provide compensation but also a speedy and efficacious remedy to a workman or his dependents. Excluding the insurer from joint liability would render the remedy illusory," the court said. It explained that while the Act places liability primarily on the employer, its Section 19 empowers the Commissioner to determine all questions related to indemnity, including the insurer's responsibility. Therefore, if a workman's claim falls within the insurance coverage, both employer and insurer can be held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The top court rejected the insurer's argument that, since the law lacks a clause similar to Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act (which mandates insurers to satisfy awards against policyholders), the compensation must be first paid by the employer. Calling such reasoning legally unsustainable, the bench warned that this approach could leave workers "high and dry" if the employer is financially unable to pay, defeating the entire purpose of the welfare law. "If we hold that the insurer is liable only to reimburse the employer, in the event the employer fails to make payment for any reason, the workman would be left without remedy," the court said. The top court noted that the insurance company had already deposited the compensation amount as directed by the Commissioner, and ordered that the amount, along with interest accrued, be released to the claimant within a month. The case arose out of a 2006 claim filed by a driver in West Bengal who suffered a disabling injury in the course of employment. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held that the insurance policy covered the risk and ordered The New India Assurance Company to pay the compensation. The insurer challenged this before the Calcutta High Court, which in 2015 modified the award, making the employer directly liable. The employer then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that such modification was unjustified as the insurance company had never denied coverage or liability. Agreeing with the employer, the Supreme Court set aside the high court order and reaffirmed that social welfare legislation must be interpreted to protect workers, not encumber them with procedural obstacles....