Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.2.1991, passed by the competent authority under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by which the competent authority has directed the appellant insurance company to pay penalty and also the interest in exercise of its power under Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 4-A of the Act. 3. Mr. D.N. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the appellant cannot be subjected to penalty and interest under Sub-section (3) of Sec. 4-A of the Act inasmuch as the appellant is only answerable to its liability under Sec. 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. It appears that the vehicle in question of whose driver was done to death, was insured with the appellant insurance company and the authority under the Act, therefore, fastened the liability upon the insurance company to pay the compensation already determined by it, vide order dated 13.12.1990. It also appears that the quantum of compensation has already been paid by the appellant insurance company on 29.7.1991. 5. On bare reading of Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 4-A of the Act, it transpired that when there is any default on the part of the employer in payment of the compensation due under the Act within a statutory period of one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner may direct for payment of penalty and interest in addition to the amount of arrears. 6. Admittedly, the appellant is not the employer, rather is the insurer of the vehicle in question. The provision of Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 4-A of the Act, therefore, in my opinion, was not applicable in the case of the insurer. 7. The liability of the insurance company is regulated by Sec. 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which purports to lay down that the insurance company will answer the liability under the judgment pronounced against the owner/wrongdoer. The liability of the owner of the vehicle is required to be established by means of evidence, oral and circumstantial. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is required to work out as to what is the just compensation in a given case depending upon the monetary loss caused to the dependants due to death or injury caused to the victim. The liability of the owner of the vehicle is required to be established by means of evidence, oral and circumstantial. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is required to work out as to what is the just compensation in a given case depending upon the monetary loss caused to the dependants due to death or injury caused to the victim. The liability of the insurance company can be limited either by the statute or by the contract of insurance. The amount of compensation is recoverable by the normal process of law. There is no concept, nor provision of making payment within the statutory period and imposition of penalty for not making the payment within the statutory period. The concept of liability in an industrial accident is thus quite different from the normal concept of the accident caused by the motor vehicles. 8. Having noticed the facts of the case and also the legal proposition as discussed above, it must be held that the order impugned, passed by the authority under the Act, is wholly without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. 9. In the result, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order, but no order as to costs.