N. K. MODY, J. ( 1 ) BEING, aggrieved by the order dated 17-4-1996 passed by Commissioner of workmen's Compensation in W. C. Case no. 16/84-NF, where by the application filed by the respondentno. l under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act has been allowed and the appellant and respondent n. 3 has been directed to pay a sum of rs. 40,000/- along with penalty @ 20% with interest @ 6% per annum, the present appeal has been filed. Short facts of the case are that respondent no. 1 filed an application before the workmen's Commissioner (Labour Court), ujjain alleging that the respondent No. l was in employment of respondent No. 3. It was alleged that respondent No. 3 was having the gas Agency. Respondent No. l went to the house of R. C. Porwal alongwith Gas Cylinder and when he was fitting Gas Cylinder at that time because of pressure, fire took place and the respondent No. l sustained burn injuries. It was alleged that because of the fire, respondent No. l sustained burn injuries on his both legs, back and face. It was alleged that respondent No. 3 was insured with the appellant. Hence, it was prayed that compensation be awarded. This application was opposed by the appellant as well as by respondent No. 3. ( 2 ) LEARNED Court below framed the issues and recorded the evidence. By the impugned award it was held that respondent No. l was in employment of respondent No. 3 and since respondent No. 3 was insured with the appellant, therefore, respondent No. 3 and appellant are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000 as compensation. It was also held that since amount was not deposited when it became due, therefore, the appellant and respondent no. 3 are further liable for payment of 20% of the amount of compensation as penalty and interest @ 6% per annum. ( 3 ) SHRI M. L. Dhupar, learned Senior advocate submits that from the evidence which has come on record it is proved that respondent No. l was not in the employment of respondent No. 3. It is submitted that a. W. 2, Raju has come in witness box and stated that he was working with respondent no. 3 and respondent No. l was working with him as Assistant. It is submitted that a. W. 2, Raju has come in witness box and stated that he was working with respondent no. 3 and respondent No. l was working with him as Assistant. Learned Counsel further submits that Shri Paramjit Singh appeared as N. A. W. 1, who happens to be husband of smt. S. Chadda, who was having the agency of the Gas Connection. It is submitted that paramjit Singh has stated that the respondent no. l was never in his employment. Learned counsel submits that this part of evidence has not at all been looked into. It is further submitted that even if it is presumed that respondent No. 1 was in employment of respondent No. 3 then it was the responsibility of respondent No. 3 to make the payment of compensation in time and if amount is not paid then appellant cannot be held responsible for penalty and interest. For this contention learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in the matter of Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and others wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "the liability of the Insurance company is to make payment of principal amount of compensation computed by commissioner and interest levied under section 4-A (3) (a), but not the penalty levied under Section 4-A (3) (b) of the Act". Reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of P. J. Narayan v. Union of India and others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, "the statutory liability under the workmen's Compensation Act is on the employer to pay compensation. There is no statutory liability upon the Insurance company. An insurance is a matter of contract between the Insurance Company and the insured". ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel in alternate further submits that the amount awarded is on a higher side. It is submitted that it is not disputed that income of the respondent No. l at the most was Rs. 300 per month. It is submitted that as per Schedule IV of workmen's Compensation Act, which was prevailing at the relevant time income of rs. 300/- on account of permanent total disablement, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. ll,200/-at the most. Itis submitted that the accident took place on 8-4-1984, while the amended Schedule of Workmen's compensation Act came into force on 1-7-1984. 300/- on account of permanent total disablement, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. ll,200/-at the most. Itis submitted that the accident took place on 8-4-1984, while the amended Schedule of Workmen's compensation Act came into force on 1-7-1984. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that vide order dated 21-4-1986, the learned Court below directed to delete the name of respondent No. 2 and in compliance of this the name of respondent No. 2 was to be deleted, but in spite of that name of respondent No. 2 has not been deleted by the appellant unnecessarily, therefore, the exemplary costs be imposed against the appellant. ( 6 ) FROM perusal of the record, it is evident that reply is filed by respondent No. 3, while in evidence Paramjit Singh was examined as d. W. I on behalf of respondent No. 3, who claimed himself as partner of M/s. Golden gas Service. No documentary evidence such as registration of firm, partnership deed is filed to demonstrate that Shri Paramjit Singh was partners of the said firm. The document ex. D-l-A, which is a photo-copy of payment of commission is not sufficient to hold that the respondent No. l was not in employment of respondent No. 3. ( 7 ) IT is undisputed that the accident has taken place in which the respondent No. l has sustained the burn injuries. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in holding the appellant liable for payment of compensation. Since, the liability for payment of compensation is on the respondent No. 3, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Ved Prakash Garg and P. J. Narayan, the learned Court below committed error in holding the appellant liable for payment of interest and penalty. To this extent the appeal is allowed. So far as payment of compensation is concerned, the appellant is liable. So far as interest and penalty is concerned, the respondent No. 3 is liable. With the aforesaid modifications, appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. - .