JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—This is an appeal arising out of the order dated 22-11-1990 passed by learned Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation [Sub-Divisional Officer (c)] Kandaghat, District Solan in Case No. 7/90 titled, Smt, Jmbir Kaur and others v, Shri S K. Goyal and another, whereby an award of a sum of Rs 89,664 and penalty of Rs 40,332 and interest at the rate of 6% on the compensation amount w. e. f. 11-3-1990 has been passed in favour of respondents I to 6 and against the appellant as well as respondent No. 7. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Sh. Gurnam Singh was employed as driver by respondent No. 7 and according to the claimants/respondents 1 to 6 in the course of his employment he received injury in accident resulting in his death on 11-3-1990. Case of the respondents further was that the injury was sustained by the deceased while he was driving truck bearing registration No. HIS-1155 belonging to respondent No 7, which met with an accident near Kandaghat on the night intervening 10th and 11th March, 1990 and the deceased driver Sh Gurnam Singh died" on the spot as a result of head injury that was sustained by him. The wages of the deceased were Rs. 1,950 and he was aged about 34 years. It was further pleaded by the respondents 1 to 6 that the truck in question stood insured with the appellant-Assurance Company and the policy was valid upto 1-12-1990. In these circumstances the total compensation of Rs. 1,55,226 80 was claimed by the claimants-respondents 1 to 6, Notice for appearance was issued to appellant, as well as respondent No 7 who did not appear as a result of such non-appearance on 23-7-1990 he was proceeded against ex pane before the Commissioner below Appellant appeared and filed its reply before the learned Commissioner below and it contested and resisted the claim of respondents-claimants 1 to 6. 3. On the pleading of the parties the learned Commissioner below framed following issues : 1. Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation ? If so, to what amount ? OPP 2. Relief. 4. Smt. Jasbir Kaur appeared as her own witness, besides examining two more witnesses, namely, Sh. Gurucharan Singh PW 2 and Pritam Singh from the statement of PW 1 as well as PW 2. Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation ? If so, to what amount ? OPP 2. Relief. 4. Smt. Jasbir Kaur appeared as her own witness, besides examining two more witnesses, namely, Sh. Gurucharan Singh PW 2 and Pritam Singh from the statement of PW 1 as well as PW 2. So far the statement of PW 3 is concerned it is general in nature and it is merely his opinion which is of no consequence on the wages aspect of the driver. RW 1 is an Assistant Administrative Officer, of the appellant who has produced the copy of Insurance Policy Ext. RW I/A and on the date of accident this policy covered the vehicle in question. It is in the background of the aforesaid circumstances as well as evidence that the submissions made on behalf of the parties have to be examined in the present appeal. 5. Sh. K. D. Sood, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the impugned award cannot be sustained to the extent that the appellant is not liable for the payment of interest and penalty as ordered by the learned Commissioner below in the impugned award and according to him this is a substantial question of law for consideration in the present appeal. 6. In support of his this submission he has placed reliance on two Division Bench judgments of this Court in F. A, O No. 18/93, Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. v. Sh. Amar Singh, decided on 24 7499 I and 1995 ACJ 1019 titled, Dromati Devi v. Sohan Singh. As per law laid down in both these cases, the case of the appellant on this question is squarely covered and to this extent the appeal deserves to be allowed and it is ordered accordingly. As a result of this, it is ordered that the appellant-Insurance Co. is not liable for the payment of penalty to the extent of Rs. 40,332 and interest at the rate of 6% as levied on the compensation amount w e f ii 3 1990 till the date of payment. As a result of this, it is ordered that the appellant-Insurance Co. is not liable for the payment of penalty to the extent of Rs. 40,332 and interest at the rate of 6% as levied on the compensation amount w e f ii 3 1990 till the date of payment. It may not be out of place to mention in this context that a sum of Rs 1,25,836 stands already deposited by the appellant with the learned Tribunal below as is evident from certificate filed alongwith this appeal The liability for payment of this penalty and interest is that of respondent 7 who being the employer was liable for the payment of the amount in question. He neither informed the appellant-Insurance Co. regarding the accident in question nor by providing the necessary documents/information etc. to it, not only this but he further chose to abstain during the course of the proceedings before the learned Commissioner below as is evident from the record of the Tribunal below. 7. Similar view has been taken by Karnataka High Court in cases reported 1994 ACJ 191, Oriental Insurance Co. Lid v. Raju and others, as well as in 1995 ACJ 236, Oriental Assurance Co. Ltd. v, Hazira Begum and others 8. Shri Bhogal learned Counsel appearing for respondent No 7 has argued that the two Division Bench judgments of this court above noted need reconsideration and the matter may be referred to a larger Bench as according to him the liability for the payment of compensation, interest as well as penalty is that of the appellant Insurance Co. and after charging the premium, according to him, it is the bounden duty of the appellant to satisfy the award in question. 9. We find no reason either to refer the matter to a larger Bench as prayed for by Sh. Bhogal or to disagree with those judgments, as such this plea is rejected. It may not be out of place to mention in this context that had respondent No, 7 lodged all the proper and relevant documents while furnishing information of the accident in question together with proof of age and monthly wages of the deceased driver in accordance with law and deposited the amount of compensation as envisaged under law with the Commissioner, then something could be said in support of the submission of Shri Bhogal. In the instant case there is positive evidence of RW 2 Sh Manohar Lai, Assistant in the office of the appellant Co. to the effect that no information was provided either by the owner or by the claimants and in the absence whereof liability could not be ascertained, It may not be out of place to clarify here that it is the liability of the employer i. e. respondent 7 to have paid the compensation and the liability of the appellant is only that of indemnifier. On this ground also the submission of Sh. Bhogal deserves to be rejected and it is ordered accordingly. 10. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed thereby setting aside the findings so far those relate to the payment of penalty and 6% interest by the appellant, while holding so it is further ordered that this amount of penalty and interest deposited by the appellant with the learned Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation (SDO (c) Kandaghat, District Solan in Case 7/90, decided on 22-11-1990, titled, Jasbir Kaur and others v. Shri S. K. Goyal and another is hereby ordered to be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Co , and it is further held that this amount shall be payable by respondent No. 7 Sh. S. K. Goyal who shall deposit the same with the learned Commissioner below within a period of two months from today. In case the entire amount of Rs. 1,25,836 as deposited by the Insurance Company with the learned Commissioner below has been withdrawn by the respondents 1 to 6, then in that event on the amount being deposited by respondent No. 7 with the Commissioner within the stipulated time, the same would be refunded to the appellant-Assurance Co. No cost. Appeal partly allowed.