JUDGMENT This appeal is directed by the non-applicant u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (For short 'the Act') against the award dated 18.1.96 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Ujjain in W.C. Case No. 11/82 whereby compensation of Rs. 28,800/- was awarded for the injuries sustained by the claimant with 50% penalty and interest at the rate of 6% per year. The facts leading to the claim case, in brief, are that the claimant was working as workman in the factory of respondent No. 1 located at Udyogpuri, Ujjain. The claimant in the night of 14.11.81 at 2 a.m. during the course of his employment, met with an accident while operating the machine, wherein his three fingers of right hand were out. His thumb and little finger were rendered useless. This factory was insured with the appellant. The respondent was earning Rs. 8/- per day. His age was 20 years. He, therefore, filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 28,800/- and Rs. 1,000/- for medical expenses and 50% penalty with interest. The respondent No. 1, the owner of the factory admitted the case of the respondent. However, the appellant resisted the claim. The Tribunal awarded compensation as stated above. Hence, this appeal by Insurance Company. The contention of Shri Dandwate, learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the compensation awarded is on-higher side, is not acceptable. It has been proved from the evidence of the claimant and Jagdishchandra, the owner of the factory, that the claimants' monthly wages were Rs. 240.00. He sustained injuries during and arising out the course of his employment. The learned Commissioner keeping in view the provision of section 4 of the Act and considering relevant factor and age of the claimant calculated compensation at Rs. 28,800.00 which cannot be said to be on higher side. Shri Dandwate, learned counsel for the appellant, putting reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and others, 1998 ACJ 1, contended that the learned Tribunal committed error in directing the appellant to pay penalty on the compensation amount. The relevant provision is section 4A which is quoted below : "4A. Compensation to he paid when due and penalty for default -- (1) Compensation under section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. The relevant provision is section 4A which is quoted below : "4A. Compensation to he 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 six 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 fifty per cent of such amount, shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty." From the plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the employer is required to pay compensation as soon as it falls due where the employer accepts liability to pay compensation, but disputes the extent of the claim of compensation, under such situation, he has to make provisional payment to the extent which he accepts, to the workman directly or deposit it with the Commissioner, if he denies the total liability, he is not required to make provisional payment, his liability would depend upon the final adjudication by the Commissioner. If compensation becomes ascertained either provisionally or finally on adjudication and the same is not paid within one month from the date, it falls due, the Commissioner can direct u/s 4A(3) to pay interest and also penalty, not exceeding 50% of the compensation amount. In this case, the respondent met with accident on 14.11.81 during the course of his employment. He sustained injuries and informed his employer who accepted entire liability but did not pay compensation within one month of the accident, thus, default was committed and the Tribunal rightly passed order for payment of interest and penalty amount u/s 4A(3) of the Act. In this case, the respondent met with accident on 14.11.81 during the course of his employment. He sustained injuries and informed his employer who accepted entire liability but did not pay compensation within one month of the accident, thus, default was committed and the Tribunal rightly passed order for payment of interest and penalty amount u/s 4A(3) of the Act. But it fell in error in directing the appellant Insurance Company to pay penalty amount as the fault was committed by the employer. The appellant had agreed to indemnify the employer for paying compensation for the injuries or death caused to his employees during the course of his employment. But it had not agreed to pay penalty for the fault committed by him. The Apex Court in case of Ved Prakash Garg (supra) held that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay penalty amount, however, it was under obligation to pay the principle amount of compensation alongwith interest as interest is not penalty. It held : "So far as this penalty amount is concerned it cannot be said that it automatically flows from the main liability incurred by the insured employer under the compensation Act. To that extent such penalty amount as imposed upon the insured employer would get out of the sweep of the term 'liability incurred' by the insured employer as contemplated by the proviso to section 147(1) (b) of the M.V. Act as well as by the terms of the insurance policy found in proviso (b) and (c) to sub-section (1) of section II thereof. On the aforesaid interpretation of these two statutory schemes, therefore, the conclusion becomes inevitable that when an employee suffers from a motor accident injury while on duty on the motor vehicle belonging to the insured employer, the claim for compensation payable under the compensation Act along with interest thereon, if any, as imposed by the Commissioner, under sections 3 and 4A (3) (a) of the Compensation Act will have to be made good by the insurance Company jointly with the insured employer. But so far as the amount of penalty imposed on the insured employer under contingencies contemplated by section 4A(3) (b) is concerned as that is on account of personal fault of the insured not backed up by any justifiable cause, the insurance Company cannot be made liable to reimburse that part of the penalty amount imposed on the employer. But so far as the amount of penalty imposed on the insured employer under contingencies contemplated by section 4A(3) (b) is concerned as that is on account of personal fault of the insured not backed up by any justifiable cause, the insurance Company cannot be made liable to reimburse that part of the penalty amount imposed on the employer. The latter because of his own fault and negligence will have to bear the entire burden of the said penalty amount with proportionate interest thereon if .imposed by the Workmen's Commissioner." In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and it is directed that the appellant shall pay amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 28,800/- to the claimant-injured with interest as allowed by the Commissioner. The amount of penalty shall be paid by the respondent within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.