J. N. Sarma, J.- This appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 30.4.94 in Misc Appeal (First) No.14 of 1995 whereby the learned Judge held that the amount of penalty under the Workmen's Compen­sation Act shall be the liability of the employers. It was further stated that the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay the penalty that is 50% of the amount. 2. A claim petition was filed before the Commissioner Workmen Compen­sation at North Tripura, Kailasahar. That was registered as Case No. TS (W/C) 1 of 1993. In order to decide the present controversy in this appeal it is necessary to refer to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the claim petition. They are quoted below : "(8) That the petitioner approached the OP No. l for the compensation who had already been informed of the accident and the resultant death, but he refused to pay it on the ground that he held a policy of insurance valid at the time of accident and as such any amount of compensation if payable would be paid by the OP No.2. (9) That the compensation due to the petitioner fell due on 2.12.92, but the amount of compensation not being paid, the petitioner is further entitled to 50% of the compensation as computed herein above in addition to the interest for the delay in payment." 3. So a bare perusal of this claim petition will show that it is specifically stated that the compensation due to the petitioner fell due on 2.12.92. The petitioner is further entitled to 50% as computed herein in addition to the interest for the delay in payment. An objection was filed by the owner with regard to this claim and therein this liability was not denied. That paragraph 7 has been dealt in para 4 of the written objection wherein it is stated, inter alia, as follows : "4. With reference the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 it is stated that the paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the petition that the compensation claimed for correspondence to Schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act." 4. In paragraphs 4 to 7 dealt in paragraph 5 it is stated as follows : "5. With reference the averments made in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition it is stated that the same are not true. In paragraphs 4 to 7 dealt in paragraph 5 it is stated as follows : "5. With reference the averments made in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition it is stated that the same are not true. On the contrary the answering opposite party informed the insurance company about the accident and the death of the said Nikhil Chandra Das. Even some money was paid to the petitioner by the opposite party on compassionate ground. The vehicle No. TRL 3957 belonging to the opposite party was insured with the United Insurance Company Ltd under Policy No.1308021/30/21/16/170 under Certificate No.740/92 for the period 17th January, 1992 to 16th January, 1993 and the said policy included the insurance liability to persons employed in connection with the operation and or loading, unloading of motor vehicle. As such the insurance company is alone liable to pay the compensation and no liability lies with the answering opposite party to pay the compensation. In the premises whereof the claim petition of answering opposite party is liable to be dismissed." 5. Before the Commissioner the wife was examined as a witness and she deposed, inter alia, as follows : "The owner of the vehicle paid Rs.500/- for the purpose of Sradha ceremony of my husband and did not pay any further money." The owner examined himself as PW1 and nowhere he denied the liability to pay the penalty. The learned Commissioner in paragraph 6 of the judgment has held as follows: "6. Learned Advocate Shri Deb very fairly and frankly submitted that he did not dispute the claim of the petitioner Smti Mira Das but he raised some technical point stating that the instant application was not properly filed. The minor son and daughter as stated by the applicant in the deposition were not properly represented in this case. He further submits that the insurance company is to pay the compensation as claimed." 7. He further found as follows : "It is also admitted fact on record that the petitioner was not paid any compen­sation which she was entitled to get under the Workmen's Compensation Act and thereby she is entitled to get further amount of compensation under the provision 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, in total Rs.(84,716 + 42,000)=Rs. 1,26,716 (Rs one lakh twenty six thousand seven hundred and sixteen) only." 8. 1,26,716 (Rs one lakh twenty six thousand seven hundred and sixteen) only." 8. This matter is covered by the earlier Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and not by the amended Act. Earlier to it, section 4A (3) provided as follows : "4A. (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 percent 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 fifty percent of such amount, shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty." 9. The Supreme Court in AIR 1976 SC 222 (Pratap Narayan Singh Deo vs. Srinivas Sabata $ another) in paragraphs 6,7 and 8, the law has been laid down as follows: "6. It has next been argued that the Commissioner committed a serious error of law in imposing a penalty on the appellant under section 4A (3) of the Act, as the compensation had not fallen due until it was-'settled' by the Commissioner under section 19 by his impugned order dated May 6, 1969. There is however no force in this argument. 7. Section 3 of the Act deal with the employer's liability for compensation. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that the employer shall be liable to pay compensation if "personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment." It was not the case of the employer that the right to compensation was taken away under sub-section (5) of section 3 because of the institution of a suit in a civil Court for damages, in respect of the injury, against the employer or any other person. The employer therefore became liable to pay the compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the workmen by the accident which admittedly arose out of and in the course of the employment. It is therefore futile to contend that the compensation did not fall due until after the Commissioner's order dated May 6, 1969 under, section 19. It is therefore futile to contend that the compensation did not fall due until after the Commissioner's order dated May 6, 1969 under, section 19. What the section provides is that if any question arises in any proceeding under the Act as to the liability-of any person to pay compensation or as to the amount or duration of the compensation it shall in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. There is therefore nothing to justify the argument that the employer's liability to pay compensation under section 3, in respect of the injury was suspended until after the settlement contemplated by section 19. The appellant was thus liable to pay compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the appellant, and there is no justification for the argument to the contrary. 8. It was the duty of the appellant under section 4A (1) of the Act to pay the compensation at the rate provided by section 4 as soon as the personal injury was caused to the respondent. He failed to do so. What is worse, he did not even make a provisional payment under sub-section (2) of section 4 for, as has been stated, he went to the extent of taking the false pleas that the respondent was a casual contractor and that the accident occurred solely because of his negligence. Then there is the further fact mat he paid no heed to the respondent's personal approach for obtaining the compensation. It will be recalled that the respondent was driven to the necessity of making an application to the Commissioner for settling the claim, and even there the appellant raised a frivolous objection as to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and prevailed on the respondent to file a memorandum of agreement settling the claim for a sum which was so grossly inadequate that it was rejected by the Commissioner. In these facts and circumstances, we have no doubt that the Commissioner was fully justified in making an order for the payment of interest and the penalty." 10. The Supreme Court has pointed out that it is not the requirement of law that in order to impose penalty first the compensation is to be determined by the Commissioner. One of the main object of the Workmen's Compensation Act is-to secure payment of compensation as soon as it falls due. The Supreme Court has pointed out that it is not the requirement of law that in order to impose penalty first the compensation is to be determined by the Commissioner. One of the main object of the Workmen's Compensation Act is-to secure payment of compensation as soon as it falls due. Where an employer does not even make the provisional payment based on the accident, the workmen is entitled to get the penalty and interest. A penalty is to be imposed as pointed out by the Supreme Court for withholding payment. The statutory duty of the employer to pay the compensation amount with the penalty because this principle is to be applied strictly once default is found on the part of the employer. This has been rightly done by the Commissioner. But the Commissioner fixed the liability on the insurance company and accordingly the insurance company filed this appeal before this Court being Misc Appeal (First) No.14 of 1995 and the learned Single Judge rightly came to the finding that penalty will be the liability of the employer and not of the insurance company. 11. Accordingly there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. We have heard Shri S. Deb, learned Advocate for the appellant, Shri D. K. Biswas, learned Advocate for the claimant and Smti S. Chakravorty, learned Advocate for the insurance company. 12. Before we part with the record we make it clear that it will be the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date on which it became due, because it was the duty of the Commissioner to impose that interest. That was not done and while deciding this appeal we thought it fit and proper to rectify that mistake. The insurance company shall pay the interest within 2 months. 13. It is contended by Shri Dev that the owner is not liable for the payment of the compensation amount if the vehicle is insured. The owner must pay the amount and may got it back by way of reimbursement.