Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In the appeal arising out of an award under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred to as the W.C. Act for short) the appellant-Insurance Company has raised an interesting question with regard to its liability under the provision of Sec. 4A(3) of the W.C. Act for payment, of interest and penalty. 2. The appellant-Insurance Company is aggrieved by the order dated 16.5.1990 passed by the Commissioner under the W.C. Act refusing to recall its order dated 31.3.1990 whereby the appellant-Insurance Company was directed to make payment of interest and penalty to the claimant on account of its failure to deposit the compensation amount within the time stipulated under the W.C. Act. 3. The facts of this case are not in much dispute. The husband of the claimant-Respondent No. 1 was a driver and while driving the tractor he met with an accident near Koderma, which resulted in his death. The widow claimant respondent No. 1 filed an application for compensation under the W.C. Act before the Commissioner under the W.C. Act, Hazaribagh, against the employer-respondent No. 2, and the said application was registered as W.C. Case No. 34 of 1989. The case of the appellant-Insurance Company is that the appellant being informed about the death and filing of the application admitted its liability to pay a sum of Rs. 82,380.00 . The Commissioner under the W.C. Act by his order dated 2.3.1990 directed to deposit the amount by 16.4.1990 and also called upon the appellant to show cause as to why penalty and interest should not be imposed. It is stated by the appellant-Insurance Company that the Commissioner under the W.C. Act in terms of the order dated 31.3.1990 directed the appellant-Insurance Company to deposit Rs. 82,380.00 as compensation and also Rs. 20,595.00 and Rs. 6,178 and paise fifty by way of penalty and interest respectively on or before 16.4.1990. The appellant-Insurance Company deposited the amount of compensation on 24.4.1990. However, on 24.4.1990 the appellant-Insurance Company filed an application before the Commissioner under the W.C, Act for recalling the order dated 31.3.1990 which was rejected by the said Commissioner in terms of the order dated 16.5.1990 and held that since the appellant-Insurance Company failed to deposit the compensation amount within the statutory period the order for payment of interest and penalty cannot be recalled. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. D.N. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, assailed the aforesaid order of the Commissioner under the W.C. Act as heing illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the order for payment of interest and penalty by the Insurance Company is wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as Sec. 4A(3) of the W.C. Act does not empower the Commissioner to make a direction against the Insurance Company for payment of penalty and interest. Learned Counsel submitted that it is the primary duty of the employer to deposit the compensation amount within the stipulated period and in default it is the employer who can be saddled with the liability for payment of interest and penalty. According to the learned Counsel, the W.C. Act does not contemplate fixing of liability against the Insurance Company. In support of his contention, learned Counsel relied upon the decisions in the cases of: (i) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Hasmat Khatoon and Ors. 1989 ACJ 862 , (ii) Gautam Transport, Bhavnagar V/s. Jiluben Huseinbhai and Ors. 1989 ACJ 587 and (iii) Dromati Devi V/s. Sohan Singh and Ors. 1995 ACJ 1019. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand submitted that once the Insurance Company undertakes to indemnify the employer by insuring the motor vehicle in respect of death or bodily injury caused to any person in motor vehicle accident as contemplated under Sec. 95 and other provisions of the Act, then the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability for payment of any amount payable under the W.C. Act. Learned Counsel in support of his contention relied upon the decisions in the cases of: (i) Madan Gopal and Ors. V/s. Anandi Lal and Ors. 1992 ACJ 543 (ii) Oriental. Insurance Co. Ltd V/s. Chandri and Ors. 1996 (1) ACJ 3. 5. Before appreciating the respective submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, it would be appropriate and useful to look into the relevant provisions of the W.C. Act and the Motor Vehicles Act for the purpose of deciding the question involved in this appeal. 6. It appears that the vehicle in question met with the accident in November, 1988, which resulted in the death of the deceased. At the relevant time, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 would be applicable. 6. It appears that the vehicle in question met with the accident in November, 1988, which resulted in the death of the deceased. At the relevant time, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 would be applicable. Chapter-VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1939) lays down the provisions for insurance of motor vehicles against 3rd party risk. Sec. 94 of the Act of 1939 provides that no person shall use except as a passenger a motor vehicle in a public place, unless the vehicle is issued by getting a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter-VIII. Sec. 95 of the Act of 1939 lays down the statutory requirement for issuance of a policy. Sec. 95 further provides that the policy shall be required to cover the liability arising under the W.C. Act, 1923 in respect of death or bodily injury to any such employee. The relevant portion of Sec. 95 of the Act of 1939 is re-produced hereinbelow: (2) Subject to the proviso to Sub-sec. (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely (a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of one lakh and fifty thousand rupees in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees other than the driver, not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle; Sec. 96 of the Act of 1939 makes it incumbent on the Insurance Company to satisfy the judgments against the persons insured. The relevant portion is Sub-section (1) of Sec. 96 which is quoted hereinbelow: 96 (1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 95 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under Clause (b) of Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 95 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under Clause (b) of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 95 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or canceled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments. The next important provision is Sec. 110AA of the Act of 1939 which corresponds to new Sec. 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under: 110AA. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), where the death or bodily injury to any person gives rise to a claim of compensation under this Act and also under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) the person entitled to compensation may, without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter VII-A, claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both. 7. The Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 was enacted for providing compensation to certain classes of employees by their employer on account of death or injury caused by accident. The said Act. in fact, provided for cheaper and quicker disposal of disputes relating to compensation through Special Tribunals. Section 3 of the W.C. Act makes it mandatory for the employer to pay compensation in accordance with the Act if death or bodily injury is caused to the workman by accident arising out of and in course of the employment. Under this Act, the Tribunal is not required to assess the quantum of compensation payable to the victim, but the same is prescribed by Sec. 4, Schedule 1 of the Act. Under this Act, the Tribunal is not required to assess the quantum of compensation payable to the victim, but the same is prescribed by Sec. 4, Schedule 1 of the Act. Section 4A which was inserted in the W.C. Act in the year 1959 by virtue of Act 8 of 1959, also makes it obligatory on the part of the employer to pay interest and penalty in the event the compensation amount is not paid within the specified time. Sec. 4A is reproduced hereinbelow: 4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.- (1) Compensation under Sec. 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 six per cent per annum en the amount due together with, it 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 penalty. 8. From a bare perusal of Secs. 95 and 96 of the Act of 1939, it is manifest that it becomes statutory liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the insured with respect to all the legal liabilities irrespective of the fact that the claim for payment of such liability is agitated before the Claims Tribunal, constituted under Sec. 110A of the Duct of 1939 or the Commissioner under the W.C. Act. Once by virtue of insurance policy the Insurance Company undertakes to discharge all the liabilities of the insured (employer) then it cannot be interpreted that the liability incurred under Sec. 4A(3) of the W.C. Act does not include the Insurance Company merely because the Section used the word "employer" I fully agree with the view expressed by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Madan Gopal (supra). The view expressed by Hi!, Lordship in the aforesaid case is as under: 18. Sec. 4A of the Act, thus, casts a duty upon the employer to pay the compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman and if he disputes his liability or the amount of compensation then, according to Sub-sec. (2), he can make such payment or deposit it with the Commissioner, as the case may be, without prejudice to the rights of the workman, but if the amount is not paid and the employer commits default in paying the compensation, then the Commissioner has been given power, in addition to the compensation, to allow simple interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum on the amount due together with the penalty, not exceeding 50 per cent of such amount. The first limb of the argument of the learned Counsel for the insurance company is that it is only the defaulting employer who is liable to pay the penalty and interest and not the insurance company. If the employer, by his negligence, incurs an additional responsibility for having violated the statutory requirement then the insurance company cannot be asked to indemnify the assured on that score and, therefore,, the liability of the insurance company is only to pay the compensation and not the interest and the penalty. The liability arising under the Act is the accident liability which has to be determined by the Commissioner under the Act though the insurance coverage flows from the Motor Vehicles Act. The composite reading of the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act with Secs. 95, 96 and 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act (corresponding to Secs. The liability arising under the Act is the accident liability which has to be determined by the Commissioner under the Act though the insurance coverage flows from the Motor Vehicles Act. The composite reading of the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act with Secs. 95, 96 and 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act (corresponding to Secs. 147, 149 and 168 of the new Act) makes it clear that in all the motor accident cases, it is the statutory duty of the insurance company to satisfy the award as the judgment-debtor and it will not make any deference whether the award is passed under the Workmens Compensation Act or under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and whether it relates to the interest or penalty or to the compensation alone. It the liability of the insurance company arises for the principal amount and if the same is not deposited or paid within one month from the date of the accident, as required under Sec. 4A(3) of the Act, then the insurer also incurs the liability to pay the penalty and interest and the liability envisaged is the whole liability including the interest and the penalty. Under the Act it is primarily the liability of the employer and once the primary liability is established then it can be enforced against the insurance company also. The aforesaid view was reiterated by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd V/s. Chandri and Ors. (supra). 9 As stated above, in my considered opinion also, the composite reading of the provisions of the W.C. Act and the relevant provisions of the Act of 1939 quoted hereinabove, makes it clear that in case of death or injury to any person including employees of the insured, it is the statutory duty of the Insurance Company to satisfy the award in respect of compensation and other consequential benefits including interest and penalty. I am further of the view that if the liability of the Insurance Company arises for payment of compensation amount, then the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability for payment of any interest and penalty when the compensation amount is not paid or deposited within the due date. I am further of the view that if the liability of the Insurance Company arises for payment of compensation amount, then the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability for payment of any interest and penalty when the compensation amount is not paid or deposited within the due date. Besides the above, from bare reading of Sec. 96 of the Act of 1939 it is clear that the said provision speaks about the liability of the Insurance Company for payment of not only the compensation amount covered by the policy, but also other liability including cost and interest. 1 reiterate my view that if an Award is passed by the Commissioner for payment of compensation and other amounts by way of penalty and interest, then it becomes obligatory on the part of the Insurance Company to satisfy the said Award against the employer in its entirety in view of Secs. 95 and 96 of the Act of 1939. 10. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd V/s. Hasmat Khatoon and Ors. (supra), upon which the Insurers Counsel put heavy reliance, the learned Single Judge took the view that when the W.C. Act has expressly provided for an exhaustive remedy for recovery of compensation by way of arrears of land revenue when the Workmens Compensation Act has expressly exempted the compensation amount from being assigned or being subjected to any charge; then there would be no necessity of taking recourse to the provisions of Sec. 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act for interpreting the liability. In that case, the learned Single Judge although referred to and distinguished the decisions of other Courts but with due respect, the learned Single Judge has not analyzed the nature of liability of the Insurance Company on composite reading of Secs. 95 and 96 of the Act of 1939 read with the provisions of the W.C. Act. 11. In Dromati Devi V/s. Sohan Singh (supra) a Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court took the view that by plain reading of Sec. 4A it is manifest that it is the duty of the employer to pay the compensation including interest and penalty in case of delayed payment, on receipt of the information about the accident. With due respect, the learned Single Judge has not at all considered the provisions of the Act of 1939 and the liability of the Insurance Company created under the Act. 12. With due respect, the learned Single Judge has not at all considered the provisions of the Act of 1939 and the liability of the Insurance Company created under the Act. 12. Having regard to the discussions made hereinabove, I hold that the composite reading of the provisions of the W.C. Act and Secs. 95, 96 and 110AA of the Act of 1939 makes it clear that in all the motor accident cases it is the statutory duty of the Insurance Company to satisfy the Award as the judgment debtor and it will not make any difference whether the Award is passed under the Workmens Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act, and whether it relates to the interest or penalty or to the compensation alone. 13. One more interesting question which is worth to be considered is that whether in a case where the Insurance Company is not informed either by the claimant or by the employer about the accident or about filing of the application before the Commissioner, then the Insurance Company shall be held liable for payment of interest and penalty, in the event the Insurance Company fails to deposit the compensation amount within one month Tom the date of accident as contemplated under Sec. 4A of the W.C. Act. 14. I do not find any justification to pass an order against the Insurance Company for payment of interest and penalty in such circumstances. As indicated above, it is the primary duty of the employer either to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of accident or to inform the Insurance Company about its liability. If the employer fails to establish that the Insurance Company was duly informed about the accident before the statutory period, then I have no hesitation in holding that the employer shall be liable for payment of interest and penalty for the period till the date, the factum of accident comes to the notice of the Insurance Company. In the instant case, the accident took place on 21.11.1988 and the application for compensation was filed before the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, on 6.10.1989. The Commissioner passed the order on 2.3.1990 to the effect that the Insurance Company was informed on 11.9.1989, hut the compensation amount was not deposited. In the instant case, the accident took place on 21.11.1988 and the application for compensation was filed before the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, on 6.10.1989. The Commissioner passed the order on 2.3.1990 to the effect that the Insurance Company was informed on 11.9.1989, hut the compensation amount was not deposited. The Commissioner, therefore, ordered that the Insurance Company should file a show cause as to why interest and penalty should not be imposed on it. From the record it appears that the Insurance Company became aware and learnt in the month of September, 1989 about the fact of accident and the claim made before the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation. Admittedly, the compensation amount was not deposited within one month, i.e. by October, 1989. In the circumstances, the appellant-Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest and penalty that shall be calculated not from the date of the accident, but from November, 1990. The amount of interest and penalty for the period from the date of accident till October, 1990, shall be payable by the employer of the vehicle in question. 15. In the result, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal, except with certain modifications indicated above. 1, therefore, direct the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, Hazaribagh, to recover the proportionate amount of interest and penalty from the appellant Insurance Company and the employer. This appeal is accordingly disposed of.