JUDGMENT Rajeev Gupta, C.J. :— Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the appellant. 2. On due consideration, CLMA No. 11639 of 2006 is allowed and the delay, in filing the appeal, is hereby condoned. 3. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, the learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 4. This is insurer’s appeal against the Award dated 14.6.2006 passed by Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Haridwar in W.C.A. No. 21 of 2005. 5. Respondent No. 1-Smt. Bhalmati Devi filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the death of her son Badri Kumar on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident on 18.11.2004 during the course of his employment as Helper/Conductor on Truck No. UP 08C 9649. 6. Respondent No. 2-Vinod Kumar, owner of the Truck, remained ex parte before the Commissioner. The insurer of the Truck i.e. appellant-United India Insurance Company Ltd. contested the claim on the plea that the claimant was not dependent on the deceased and as such, was not entitled to get any compensation from the Insurance Company. The insurer took the further plea that the deceased, being a Helper/Conductor on the Truck, was not covered by the policy issued by the appellant-Insurance Company to respondent No. 2-Vinod Kumar, the owner of the Truck. 7. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, on the evidence led by the parties, held that claimant’s son Badri Kumar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident; Badri Kumar sustained injuries during the course of his employment; and the insurer of the Truck was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 8. Assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,250/- per month and taking into account that the deceased was aged about 22 years on the date of the accident, the Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 2,49,041/- . The Commissioner, further, directed the insurer to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition. 9. The appellant-Insurance Company, in compliance of the mandatory requirement of Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, though has deposited the amount of compensation of Rs. 2,49,041/-, the amount of interest has not been deposited so far. 10. Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 reads as follows : “30. 9. The appellant-Insurance Company, in compliance of the mandatory requirement of Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, though has deposited the amount of compensation of Rs. 2,49,041/-, the amount of interest has not been deposited so far. 10. Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 reads as follows : “30. Appeals.— (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely : (a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; [(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4A;] (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant; (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 12; or (e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions: Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees : Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties; Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. (2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this Section shall be sixty days. (3) The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall be applicable to appeals under this Section.” 11. (2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this Section shall be sixty days. (3) The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall be applicable to appeals under this Section.” 11. Thus, it is apparent from the Third Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 that no appeal under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. 12. In the present case, the appellant-Insurance Company was directed under the impugned Award to pay the compensation of Rs. 2,49,041/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation. Hence, what was payable under the Award was not only the amount of compensation of Rs. 2,49,041/- but also the amount of interest on the above amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum. 13. As the appellant-Insurance Company, admittedly, has not deposited the amount of interest on the amount of compensation under the impugned Award, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the mandatory provision under Third Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 14. That part, the compensation of Rs. 2,49,041/- awarded by the Commissioner does not appear to be ‘unreasonable’ in any manner. 15. The appellant’s submission that the Conductor/Helper of the Truck was not covered under the policy of insurance issued by the appellant-Insurance Company to second respondent Vinod Kumar, the owner of the Truck deserves an outright rejection, as the policy, a copy whereof has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company along with the Memo of Appeal as Annexure No. 3, clearly indicates that the owner of the Truck has paid additional premium of Rs. 75/- for covering the risk of three employees in addition to the premium of Rs. 100/- to cover the personal accident to owner/driver. 16. The reliance of the appellant’s counsel on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance Co. 75/- for covering the risk of three employees in addition to the premium of Rs. 100/- to cover the personal accident to owner/driver. 16. The reliance of the appellant’s counsel on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2003) 10 SCC 664 : (AIR 2003 SC 2877), is of no help to the appellant for the simple reason that the policy, in the present case, expressly covers the risk of three employees under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, for which, additional premium of Rs. 75/- was paid by the owner of the Truck and was accepted by the appellant-Insurance Company. 17. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the mandatory provision under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 as well as on merits. 18. The appeal, therefore, is hereby dismissed summarily. 19. Consequently, CLMA No. 11640 of 2006 also stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.