unless the party obliged to pay the amount due, acted either deliberately or in defiance of law, or was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. The mere fact that the Corporation is empowered to recover damages does not mean that the Corporation can act mechanically and without taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case. It is to be noted that the statutory provision does not prescribe any minimum to be recovered as damages. What is provided is the maximum that can be recovered. We are of the view, that since the opportunity that is provided before recovering the damages should be effective and meaningful, the authority empowered to levy damages should have the discretion either to levy the damages or to dispense with the levy of the damages. The Corporation will not be justified in levying the damages in case where the employer, or the person,who is bound to pay the amount in respect of the contribution payable in this regard, is able to offer sufficient or cogent explanation for non-remittance, or in case where there is only a technical or venial breach of the provision of the Act, or there exists bona fide circumstances, which will point out that there was no deliberate omission on the part of the employer. In this perspective, we hold that the Insurance Court, which is a proper forum prescribed by the Act to adjudicate as to whether the order or proceeding initiated by the Corporation to recover damages is justified, can evaluate the entire matter, and if it is satisfied that there are extenuating circumstances, it can dispense with the recovery of damages, or delete or reduce the quantum of damages levied or afford such other relief, which in its opinion, is deserved in the circumstances. Delivering the judgment of the Bench, Subramonian Poti, J. in C.L. Anand v. Regional Director, (1980 KLT 139 : 1980 Lab I.C. 90) stated thus:
