JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 1.12.1988 passed by Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Distt. Shahdol, M.P., whereby the appellant insurance company was directed to pay Rs. 60,299.70 as compensation to respondent No. 1 and also interest on this amount at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of accident, i.e., 17.12.1985 till the date of payment/deposit. Respondent No. 1 was an employee of respondent No. 2 in a hazardous occupation. Respondent No. 2 had insured his employees including respondent No. 1 with appellant insurance company for payment of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The respondent No. 1 suffered an accident on 17.12.1985 wherein his right hand was crushed in a Loader Machine and had to be ultimately amputated above his elbow resulting in permanent disability. These factors are not in dispute. The compensation was calculated according to Section 4-B and Schedule IV of the said Act. Section 4B of the Act lays down formula for calculation of compensation as 50 per cent of monthly wages of the injured/workman multiplied by the relevant multiple factor. The relevant multiple factor is given in Schedule IV. It varies with age. The age of the respondent No. 1 has been found by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, as 30 years at the time of accident. This is not being disputed in appeal also. The relevant multiplicating factor, therefore, is 207.98 as per the Schedule. This is also not disputed in the present appeal that the monthly emoluments of respondent No. 1 at the time of accident were Rs. 580/-. So, the amount of compensation to which he was entitled would be (Rs. 290/- x 207.98) = Rs. 60,299.70. This remains undisputed. 2. The only question raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant before me is that the insurance company, as per clauses of the insurance policy, was not liable to pay the penalty or interest. The insurance policy is proved on record as Exh. P 3. In the policy, it is specifically mentioned that the insurer would not be liable to pay the penalty or interest. The liability to pay penalty or interest arises by applicability of Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The insurance policy is proved on record as Exh. P 3. In the policy, it is specifically mentioned that the insurer would not be liable to pay the penalty or interest. The liability to pay penalty or interest arises by applicability of Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is as under: 4-A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.-(1) Compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he 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 6 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 50 per cent of such amount, shall be recovered from the employer, by way of penalty. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has not ordered payment of penalty. So, there can be no grievance on that account. The Commissioner had ordered payment of interest at the rate of 6 per cent on the compensation amount, from the date of accident till the date of deposit or payment. This is being challenged by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 3. After considering the provisions and hearing the learned Counsel for parties, this Court is of the view that from the date of accident till the date of order for the payment of compensation which has been ordered to be paid (Sic.), interest falls under Section 4A of the Act. The liability for that interest was certainly that of the employer under Section 4A of the Act. It would have fallen on the insurer also, had it not been excluded by terms of insurance policy. Since, it has been excluded, specifically by terms of insurance policy, that liability cannot be imposed on the insurer. 4. The liability for that interest was certainly that of the employer under Section 4A of the Act. It would have fallen on the insurer also, had it not been excluded by terms of insurance policy. Since, it has been excluded, specifically by terms of insurance policy, that liability cannot be imposed on the insurer. 4. However, it is entirely different that if the decretal amount is not paid, future interest will be recoverable under the general principles which have been adopted in Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code and also to do justice between a decree-holder and judgment-debtor. It appears from the record that the insurance company had deposited Rs. 40,000/- under order dated 19.7.90 of this Court. The appellant made that deposit as it was condition for grant of stay against the rest of the recovery. I am told by the counsel for the appellant that the amount of Rs. 40,000/- had been deposited by the insurance company. 5. The Commissioner's order of payment of interest is to be sub-divided into two portions : (1) Interest from the date of accident till the date of passing of the final order, i.e., up to 1.2.1988. (2) Interest from the date of the final order assessing the amount of compensation and ordering its payment till recovery. The exception provided in the insurance policy cannot be interpreted to mean that even after an order of payment, which is an enforceable order, of assessed amount is passed and the insurance company fails to make payment, for whatever reasons, it is not liable to pay interest for the assessed amount. In fact, excepting clause under insurance policy does not visualise the situation that the insurance company will not pay after the liability has been assessed by the Commissioner. So, that clause cannot be interpreted to be taking out liability of the insurance company for interest for a period after order of payment is passed by the Commissioner till the date of recovery on assessed amount. 6. The learned Commissioner has also passed orders of payment of interest for the period beyond the order till deposit or recovery at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. He has been extremely lenient in this. 6. The learned Commissioner has also passed orders of payment of interest for the period beyond the order till deposit or recovery at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. He has been extremely lenient in this. The amount ordered as payable becomes an ascertained debt due from the insurance company to the workman, in this sense that the workman is entitled to the amount from the insurance company and the insurance company withholds it, and takes all the benefits of keeping and investing it in various manners, as a commercial institution. So, it earns out of that amount. So by not paying under the order, the insurance company is exploiting the workman by earning from an amount which belongs to the workman. The workman is, thus, entitled to reasonable return on such amount. So, in the interest of justice, I hold that the learned Commissioner was right in ordering the insurance company to pay interest also on the ordered amount after the date of the order till payment. I have already observed that under the exception provided in the clause of insurance policy, the liability of insurance company does not arise for the period from the date of accident till the date of order. That liability would have been of the employer, but I find that no order against the employer has been passed and the workman is not in appeal before this Court to seek order against the employer, although employer was a party before the Commissioner and is party respondent in appeal also. So, we have to leave it at that. 7. The net result is that the appeal of the insurance company is partly accepted to this extent that the appellant company would not be liable to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 60,299.70 from the date of accident, i.e., 17.12.1985 till the date of passing of order, i.e., 1.12.1988. But, it is made clear that appellant's liability to pay interest after 1.12.1988 on the entire amount to the extent it remained unpaid and for the period it remained unpaid continues. The order of the Commissioner is, thus, partly modified.