Judgment – Heard Shri M.C. Kandpal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri S.S. Chaudhari for the appellant and Shri H.M. Raturi, counsel for respondent no.1 and Shr; D.S. Patni, counsel for respondent no. 2. 2. Present review application has been filed for modification of the order dated 18-7-2007 by which the order dated 17-5-2002 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on the review application has been set aside. 3. Initially, by order dated 21-6-2001, a sum of Rs. 1,78,000/- has been awarded by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner along with the amount of interest to the extent of Rs. 37,474/- @ 12 per cent per annum. It has been observed while awarding the amount to the following effect: 4. Against the aforesaid order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, the review application was filed by Smt. Harender Kaur who is the owner of the alleged vehicle. The review application was allowed by the order dated 7-5-2002 by which the liability for payment of the interest was condoned. 5. An appeal was preferred by plaintiff-appellant against the review order by which the interest amount was condoned. The order dated 17-5-2002 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner with regard to condonation of interest amount has been set aside by me in my order dated 18-7-2007. 6. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the liability of interest cannot be fastened on the insured in view of the findings of the Apex Court in the case L.R. Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs. Mahavir, (2002) 9 SCC 450. It has been held by the Apex Court that the interest is payable by the insurance company while the penalty in default of payment of the 'amount within a month, is payable by the employer. The Apex Court has observed as under: "The only contention put forth before us is that the entire liability including penalty and interest will have to be reimbursed by the insurance company and this aspect has not been examined by the learned Single Judge in the High Court and needs examination at out hands. In Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi, 1997(8) SCC 1 this Court after examinin9. the entire scheme or the Act held that payment of interest and penalty are two distinct liabilities arising under the Act, while liability to pay interest is part and parcel of legal liability to pay compensation upon default of payment of that amount within one month. In Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi, 1997(8) SCC 1 this Court after examinin9. the entire scheme or the Act held that payment of interest and penalty are two distinct liabilities arising under the Act, while liability to pay interest is part and parcel of legal liability to pay compensation upon default of payment of that amount within one month. Therefore, claim for compensation along with interest will have to be made good jointly by the insurance company with the insured employer. But, so far as the penalty Imposed on the Insured employer IS on account of his personal fault the insurance company Cannot be made liable to reimburse penalty imposed of the employer. Hence the compensation with Interest IS payable by the Insurance company but not penalty. Following the said decision and for the reasons stated therein, we modify the order made by the High Court to that extent." 7. A Division Bench of this High Court in the case The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Meera Devi and another, 2006 (1) U.D. 278, on the dictum of Apex Court in the case L.R. Ferro Alloys Ltd. (supra) has held that compensation with interest is payable by the insurer but not the penalty. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the interest part on the amount of compensation being the liability of the insurer, the recall/modification application is allowed. The insurance company in question is directed to indemnify the interest amount also in addition to the compensation awarded by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. 9. Subject to the aforesaid, review is allowed. No order as to costs.