N. VENKATACHALA, J. ( 1 ) THE short question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the sum not exceeding 50% of the amount of compensation which could be recovered from the employer by way of penalty for default in paying that amount of compensation due under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the act') is the liability arising under the act for which insurance coverage is compulsory under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'm. v. act' ). ( 2 ) MATERIAL tacts which have given rise to the said question are briefly these: respondent No. 2, the new India assurance co. Ltd. Has issued an insurance policy under Section 95 of the m. v. act covering the liability for death or personal injury of the driver of the autorikshaw with registration No. Cam 1326 in favour of the owner of that autorikshaw respondent-1 herein. Respondent No. 1 while had employed one kuppuswamy as a driver of that autorikshaw there occurred an accident on 14/15-8-1987 in the course of driving of that autorikshaw, a motor vehicle, and as a result of that accident, the said driver who had suffered bodily injuries succumbed to them and died. The appellants who were the legal representatives of the deceased driver made claim application under Section 22 of the act before the workmen's compensation and labour officer, Bangalore, claiming compensation for the driver's death against respondent No. 1, owner of the vehicle, for driving of which the deceased had been employed as also the insurance company-respondent No. 2 who had by issue of a insurance policy covered the risk of life of the driver, the employee of respondent No. 1. ( 3 ) THE workmen's compensation and labour officer awarded a sum of rs. 75,824/- liable to be paid under Section 3 of the act and computed under Section 4 of the act. He ordered payment of interest on the said amount of compensation at 6% per annum and made it liable to be paid by respondents 1 and 2 the owner of the vehicle and the insurer. Besides, he awarded a sum constituting 25% of the amount of compensation liable to be paid by respondents 1 and 2 to be paid as penalty by respondent No. 1 only. That penally was made payable under Section 4-a of the act. Besides, he awarded a sum constituting 25% of the amount of compensation liable to be paid by respondents 1 and 2 to be paid as penalty by respondent No. 1 only. That penally was made payable under Section 4-a of the act. The appellants, in the present appeal, who were the claimants before the workmen's compensation and labour officer have questioned his order in so far as it has not made respondent No. 2 the insurer liable for the sum of penalty ordered to be recovered from the owner of the vehicle-respondent No. 1. It is how the aforesaid question arises for our consideration. ( 4 ) THE argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is, the liability arisingunder the act respecting which the insurance policy is issued by respondent No. 2 under Section 95 of the m. v. act is a liability which shall include not only the amount of compensation liable to be paid for the employee's death or injury under Section 3 of the act and computed under Section 4 of the act but also the amount of not exceeding 50% of the compensation recoverable as penalty under Section 4-a (3)of the act. ( 5 ) NODOUBT, the argument on its face looks attractive. But, we find it to be with out substance for the reasons we shall presently state. Issuance of a policy under Section 95 of the m. v. act by the insurer has to cover the liability arising under the act because of proviso (1) to sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the m. v. act. But, the question is whether the liability which is so covered by the insurance policy could be regarded as the one which includes the amount uplo 50% of compensation which could be recovered from the owner as penalty for default in payment of compensation under Section 4-a (3) of the act. Employer's liability for compensation to employee's death or bodily injury arises under Section 3 of the act and the same falls due as computed under Section 4 thereon. Employer's liability for compensation to employee's death or bodily injury arises under Section 3 of the act and the same falls due as computed under Section 4 thereon. Section 4-a of the act which refers to the compensation liable to be paid under the act as also the amount upto 50% of the compensation recoverable as the penalty from the employer reads thus:"4-A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default: (l) compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) in cases where hie employer does not accept the liability for compensation to ihe extent claimed, be shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the commissioner or made to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim. (3) where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act, within one month from the date it 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 penally". sub-sections (l) and (2) of Section 4-a refers to the liability to compensation payable under the act by the employer and which has fallen due thereunder. The opening words used in sub-section (3) which enables the commissioner to recover upto 50% of the amount of compensation by way of penalty from the employer, to wit, 'where any employer is in default in paying the compensalion due under this act' does not leave any scope for doubling that amount of compensation due under the act is one thing and the amount recoverable in default of non-payment of that compensation as penalty, as is provided for in the latter portion of that sub-section, is altogether different. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the liability under the act for which compulsory policy is taken should covet not only the amount of compensation due under the act but also the additional sum which could be recovered by way of penally from the employer for reason of his default in paying the amount of compensation, cannot be accepted and il has to be held that the word "liability" used with reference to the act (the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923) in Section 95 of the m. v. Act, excludes from it the sum not exceeding 50 per cent which could be recovered by the commissioner from the employer for default in payment of compensation payable under the act by way of penalty as provided for under sub-section (3) of the act. ( 6 ) HENCE, this appeal fails and is dismissed without being admitted. --- *** --- .