CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the Insurance Company to challenge the order dated 30-10-1993 in WCA. SR. 32 of 1993 passed by the Labour Officer and Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, New Division, Bijapur, whereunder as against the original claim of Rs. 1,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 89,600/- was awarded in favour of the respondent 1-claimant. ( 2 ) I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Sri S. P. Shankar, the respondent 1, Sri G. S. Kannur and the respondent 2, Sri P. S. Manjunath. I have also perused the case records together with records of the Commissioner below. ( 3 ) THE facts relevant for our purpose are as hereunder: That one Shanthabai aged about 20 years, the daughter of the respondent 1-claimant was working as a coolie under the respondent 2. That she entered into service on 4-12-1990 and her salary was shown at rs. 1,027/- p. m. That she met with an accident within the premises of the factory of the respondent 2 on 14-3-1991 and subsequently she succumbed to the accident injuries on 18-3-1991. It was claimed that the deceased suffered accident injuries during the course of employment. ( 4 ) THAT the respondent 1 being the mother and natural guardian and dependant within the meaning of Section 2 of the Workmen's compensation Act (henceforth in brief as 'w. C. Act') filed a claim petition before the Labour Officer and Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, New division, Bijapur (henceforth in brief as 'commissioner' ). In the claim petition, she had arrayed the respondent 2 as employer and the appellant herein as the Insurance Company with whom the life of the respondent 2 was stated to have been insured. The appellant-Insurance company had been arrayed as a party, for the reason that the respondent 2 had taken Workmen's Compensation Policy. That the commissioner had issued notices both to the respondent 2 as well as the appellant herein in the said Workmen's Compensation case. When the respondent 2 remained ex parte before the Commissioner, the appellant-Insurance company having appeared before the Commissioner, had filed statement of objections, wherein it had contended that it was liable to indemnify to an extent of Rs. When the respondent 2 remained ex parte before the Commissioner, the appellant-Insurance company having appeared before the Commissioner, had filed statement of objections, wherein it had contended that it was liable to indemnify to an extent of Rs. 29,808/- under the policy that was issued by them and that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy they were liable to deposit the above sum and accordingly they have deposited the sum before the Commissioner. ( 5 ) THAT the respondent 1-claimant in her evidence had deposed before the Commissioner that the deceased died on 18-3-1991. That she was 20 years old at the time of her death and that she was working under the respondent 2 and further that her salary at the time of death was Rs. 1,127-50 Ps. However, the appellant-Insurance Company did not choose to adduce evidence from their side before the Commissioner. ( 6 ) BASED on the evidence on record, the Commissioner had passed the impugned award, whereunder while awarding Rs. 89,600/ -. By giving allowance for the deposit of Rs. 29,808/- made by the appellant-Insurance company as stated above, directed the appellant-Insurance Company and the respondent 2 to deposit the balance of Rs. 59,792/- together with interest at 6% p. a. ( 7 ) THE appellant-Insurance Company having been aggrieved with the fastening of the liability also on it, had resorted to the instant appeal. The only grievance of the appellant-Insurance Company in the instant appeal is that under the terms and conditions of the policy, it was liable to compensate a sum of Rs. 29,808/- and nothing beyond and further that the respondent 2-employer is liable to compensate the balance sum of Rs. 59,792/- to the respondent 1. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company while adverting to the above grounds submitted that a sum of Rs. 29,808/- was deposited by it before the Commissioner and that the claim form was submitted by the contractor under whom the deceased stated to have been working as a coolie. Incidentally, it is pointed out by him that in the said claim form, the monthly wage of the deceased was shown at Rs. 306/- in the month of December, 1990, Rs. 366/- in the month of January, 1991 and Rs. 321/- in the month of February, 1991. Incidentally, it is pointed out by him that in the said claim form, the monthly wage of the deceased was shown at Rs. 306/- in the month of December, 1990, Rs. 366/- in the month of January, 1991 and Rs. 321/- in the month of February, 1991. It is further pointed by him that in the month of March, 1991 a sum of Rs. 134-50 Ps. , was disbursed to the deceased. Therefore, he submitted that it was erroneous on the part of the Commissioner to fasten the entire liability also on the appellant-Insurance Company. Hence, he prayed that the impugned award holding that the appellant-Insurance Company is also liable to compensate the entire sum is liable to be set aside. ( 9 ) IT is to be pointed out here that the appellant-Insurance Company had worked out the compensation amount to be deposited by it before the Commissioner as per Section 5 (c) of the Workmen's Compensation act (hereinafter refer to as 'act') with reference to the claim form filed by the contractor. It is also relevant to quote here what it had stated that in para (2) of the objection statement, the same as hereunder: "this respondent has deposited Rs. 29,808/- through D. D. No. 732859 along with a letter dated 25-01-1993. The calculations have been made as under: ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent 2, Sri Manjunath argued that though the Commissioner had issued notice to the respondent 2, it did not choose to appear before the Commissioner for the reason that the deceased was a coolie employed by its contractor. According to him, the said aspect of the case was ignored by the commissioner while passing the impugned order. He therefore, submitted that the matter be remanded to the Commissioner for fresh enquiry, if necessary by issue of notice to the contractor under whom the deceased was working as a coolie. It is also submitted by him that the said fact is apparent as the claim form was originally submitted by none other than by the contractor himself. Sri Manjunath had also cited before me a reported decision in AIR 1997 SC 3854 (sic), on the point that the liability of the Insurance Company arising under the Workmen's compensation Act extends to payment of principal amount of compensation computed by Commissioner and interest levied under Section 4-A (3) (a ). Sri Manjunath had also cited before me a reported decision in AIR 1997 SC 3854 (sic), on the point that the liability of the Insurance Company arising under the Workmen's compensation Act extends to payment of principal amount of compensation computed by Commissioner and interest levied under Section 4-A (3) (a ). ( 11 ) PER contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent 1-claimant, Sri Kannur while supporting the impugned order passed by the commissioner argued that even if there is a controversy as to under whom the deceased was working, the same is of no consequence, for according to him, sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act, the respondent 2 being the principal employer is also equally liable to pay the compensation under the Act and that it is entitled to be indemnified by the contractor. It is further argued by him that in the instant case in hand when the respondent 2 did not choose to appear before the Commissioner despite there being a notice by the Commissioner, there is no reason for the respondent 2 be aggrieved with the impugned order. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner be confirmed if necessary by giving liberty to the respondent 2 to proceed against its contractor in the matter of recovery of the sum due under the impugned order. ( 12 ) IT is also to be pointed out here at the outset that when the respondent 1-claimant filed a claim petition before the Commissioner, she did not set out the correct facts before the Commissioner properly and correctly, for it appears that the deceased was employed by the contractor of the respondent 2 and not by the respondent 2 itself. Let apart as against the evidence adduced by the respondent 1-claimant claiming that the deceased was employed by the respondent 2, the appellant-Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence from its side. On the evidence of the respondent 1-claimant on record, it is difficult for this Court to appreciate the argument of the respondent 2 that it was not liable to compensate the respondent 1 particularly when it did not appear before the Commissioner despite notice was served on it and that under Section 12 (2) of the Act it was equally liable to compensate the claimant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to me that the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent 1-claimant has to be accepted. ( 13 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company argued that it was liable to compensate only to an extent of Rs. 29,808/- in terms of the insurance policy obtained by the contractor of the respondent 2 as in the claim petition filed by the contractor, it was clearly set out that the wage of the deceased for the months of December, 1990 to march, 1991 as set out in para 4 above. It is also not in dispute that the appellant-Insurance Company had computed a sum of Rs. 29,808/- with reference to Section 5 (c) of the Act and further with reference to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the insurance premium was paid with reference to the wages disbursed by the contractor to the deceased. The said argument of Sri S. P. Shankar appearing for the appellant has to be accepted, as it appears to me. ( 14 ) IN the result, I find every merit in the instant appeal filed by the Insurance Company and in my considered view the same is liable to be allowed. Therefore, I pass the following: order (i) The computation of compensation of Rs. 89,600/- in passing the impugned order by the Commissioner is upheld. (ii) Out of the above compensation amount, the appellant-Insurance company is liable to compensate the respondent 1-claimant to an extent of Rs. 29,808/- together with interest (which is already paid by the appellant-Insurance Company before the Commissioner ). (iii) The respondent 2-employer is liable to pay compensation for the balance sum of Rs. 59,792/- together with penalty at 20% and interest at 6% p. a. both to be worked out with reference to the date of application and the compensation amount of Rs. 89,600/ -. (iv) The respondent 2-employer is at liberty to recover from the contractor under whom the deceased was working as coolie thereafter as contemplated under Section 12 (2) of the Act. (v) The respondent 2-factory is hereby directed to deposit the entire sum together with penalty and interest within a period of 8 weeks from this day before the Commissioner below after giving deduction for Rs. 29,808. 00 deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company as above. (v) The respondent 2-factory is hereby directed to deposit the entire sum together with penalty and interest within a period of 8 weeks from this day before the Commissioner below after giving deduction for Rs. 29,808. 00 deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company as above. The appeal therefore succeeds and accordingly stands allowed. No cost. --- *** --- .