JUDGEMENT V.K. Gupta, C.J. (Oral): In this appeal, the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmens Compensation Act, Sundernagar dated 29th June, 2006 has been assailed on two grounds; firstly that the deceased was not an employee of respondent No.3 as on the date of accident and secondly that the appellant-insurer was not liable to pay the interest on the amount of compensation. On both the courts the appeal should fail and for the following reasons. 2. The question whether the deceased was an employee of respondent No.3 or not is based purely and conclusively on appreciation of evidence. The evidence was led before the Commissioner which clearly established that the deceased at the time of the accident was working as a Conductor in the vehicle in , question, under the employment of respondent No.3 neither there is any warrant for me in this appeal to upset this finding of fact nor is this ground available to the! j appellant looking to the limited nature of grounds of appeal available under Section!/ 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. 3.In so far as the second ground is concerned, nowhere in the appeal has the appeal has the appellant asserted, averred or even suggested that the contract of insurance between itself and respondent No.3 did not contain term or a provision that the appellant-insurer was not liable to pay the interest on the compensation amount. In view of the ratio laid down in the recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya and another, reported in 2006 ACJ 1699, an Insurance Company is not liable to pay interest on the compensation amount only if the contract of insurance between itself and the employer contains a terms to this effect. 4. Undoubtedly a reading of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment does clearly suggest that it is open, under the Scheme of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, for an insurer to exclude its liability to pay interest on compensation amount, yet on a question of fact the insurer has to specifically aver and plead this fact. In the instant case, this fact was neither averred nor pleaded either before the Commissioner or in this Court in the present appeal. The appeal has not merit and it is dismissed in limine. CMP No. 1052 of 2006. In the instant case, this fact was neither averred nor pleaded either before the Commissioner or in this Court in the present appeal. The appeal has not merit and it is dismissed in limine. CMP No. 1052 of 2006. In view of the dismissal of the appeal. This application shall stand dismissed.