JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.4.89 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Banswara, by which the Workmen Compensation Commissioner allowed the application under section 20 of the Workmen Compensation Act and awarded a sum of Rs. 69,411 /- as compensation. 2. Bhanji was employed as the driver on truck No. GRN 4864 belonging to Daud Bhai. The truck was insured with the United India Insurance Company. On 20.4.1988 the truck met with an accident. Bhanji, while in the employment of Daud Bhai (respondent No. 6) died in this accident. The parents, widow, two sons and the daughter of deceased Bhanji filed an application under section 20 of the Workmen Compensation Act (for short, `the Act') before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Banswara. The owner of the vehicle, during the course of whose employment Bhanji died in the accident, did not contest the claim petition and, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were taken against the owner of the vehicle. The claim petition was contested by the insurance company. The insurance company denied its liability on the ground that at the time when the accident took place, the vehicle in question was not in the ownership and control of Daud Bhai and the truck was being driven by a person who was not having any valid licence and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the claim. 3. The claimants, in support of their case, examined Smt. Bharti (widow of deceased Bhanji), Raoji and Khatra. No witness was examined in the defence. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner, therefore, by the order dated 6.4.1989 awarded the compensation amounting to Rs. 69,411/- to the claimants. It is against this order that the insurance company has filed this appeal. 4. The appeal under section 20 of the Workmen Compensation Act is maintainable only on a substantial question of law and, therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant challenges the order passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner awarding the compensation only on the ground that the insurance company, under section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act is not liable to indemnify the claim of the claimants as this section excludes the liability of the insurance company relating to the driver of the vehicle. The insurance company is, therefore, also, not liable to indemnify the claim of interest and penalty. The insurance company is, therefore, also, not liable to indemnify the claim of interest and penalty. It has, also, been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the interest and the penalty were never claimed by the claimants nor any appeal or cross objection has been filed by them. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner but further submitted that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner committed an error in not awarding the interest on the amount of compensation and was, also, not justified in not imposing the penalty for the delay in the payment of the amount of compensation. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The first question which requires consideration is : whether Section 95(2)(a) of the Act excludes the liability of the insurance company relating to the driver of the motor vehicle which met with an accident resulting in the death of the driver ? Section 95(2)(a) of the Act states that subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of one accident : where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- excluding the liability arose under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1953, in respect of death of or bodily injury to the employee other than the driver, not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle. The expression "other than the driver" used in this sub-section does not mean that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the claim of the owner of the vehicle in connection with the death of or injury to the driver of the vehicle. It only states that the limit of the liability of the insurance company with respect to the goods vehicle is only Rs. 1,50,000/- excluding the claim regarding the driver, which will be in addition to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The liability of the insurance company, as per Section 95(2)(a) of the Act is in addition to Rs. 1,50,000/- and not that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the employer the claim regarding the injury to or death of the driver of the vehicle. 1,50,000/-. The liability of the insurance company, as per Section 95(2)(a) of the Act is in addition to Rs. 1,50,000/- and not that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the employer the claim regarding the injury to or death of the driver of the vehicle. The insurance company charged an additional amount to cover the risk of the driver, also, and when the insurance company has charged the amount and covered the risk of the driver then, now, at this stage, it cannot take a some salt and claim that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured-employer against its liability. The contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, devoid of any force. 7. The next question which requires consideration is : whether the claimants are entitled for interest and penalty under section 4-A of the Workmen Compensation Act ? Section 4-A of the Act gives a discretion to the Commissioner to award interest @ 6% per annum and to impose penalty up to 50% of such amount if in the opinion of the Commissioner the employer, without any justification, delayed in paying the compensation and under the Act. Though no reasons have been given by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner for not awarding the interest or levying penalty for the delayed payment but he did not exercise his discretion in favour of the claimants and did not award any interest or imposed any penalty. Neither any appeal nor any cross objection has been filed by the claimants against the order not awarding the interest and the penalty by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and in this view of the matter I do not think it proper to interfere in the order passed by him not awarding the interest or not imposing the penalty. 8. In the result; I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******