JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 4th June, 1988, passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Nainital, in W.C.A. No. 10 of 1987, between Sri Ram Anuj Singh and Sri Hari Shanker Singh, under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, by the insurer i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent no. 1 - Ram Anuj (since deceased) filed a petition under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against Sri Hari Shanker Singh and the United India Insurance Company for grant of compensation on account of death of Sri Atal Bharat Singh in an accident during his employment as Tractor driver. The claimant has alleged that the deceased was 23 years of age at the time of accident. On 11.3.1987 at about 10.00 PM, he was returning back after delivering sugar cane to Manjhola Sugar Mill. He met with accident and his dead body was recorded near Village Haldikhora. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Khatima. The deceased was getting Rs. 700/- per month as salary. 3. The opposite party no. 1 Sri Hari Shanker Singh has filed his written statement and admitted that the deceased was under his employment as Tractor driver and was getting Rs. 700/- per month as salary. He also admitted the fact of accident. He has submitted that the tractor was comprehensively insured with the United India Insurance Company, therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation, if any, to the claimant. 4. Opposite party no. 2, the United India Insurance Company Ltd. has contested the case and has filed written statement. The Insurance Company has stated that no notice under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act has been given to the Insurance Company. There was no relationship of employee and employer in between the deceased and the opposite party no. 2. The claim petition has been filed in collusion with opposite party no. 1 and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 5. On the basis of pleadings adduced by the parties, the following issues were framed : a. Whether deceased Atal Bharat Singh was a workman or not? b. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, from which of the opposite parties? 6. 1 and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 5. On the basis of pleadings adduced by the parties, the following issues were framed : a. Whether deceased Atal Bharat Singh was a workman or not? b. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, from which of the opposite parties? 6. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner after having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, passed the award dated 4.6.1988 and directed that the insurer shall pay the amount of compensation for a sum of Rs. 61,606/- along with simple interest of 6% per annum (a sum of Rs. 3696.36). The Workmen Compensation Commissioner also directed the insurer to pay the penalty for a sum of Rs. 32,651.18. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the insurer-United India Insurance Company Limited has preferred the appeal before Allahabad High Court, which has been transferred to this Court after creation of new State. 8. Heard Sri K.K. Shah, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri T.K. Nailwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 (owner of the tractor), Sri Anil Kumar Bisht, learned counsel for legal heirs of respondent no. 1 (deceased) and perused the record. 9. As far as merit of the case is concerned, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has recorded a categorical finding that the deceased was working under the employment of respondent no. 2, who is the owner of the tractor at the time of accident and he died during the course of discharge of his official duties. I do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the evidence made by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. Keeping in view the age of the deceased as well as his income, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has rightly assessed the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants and this finding recorded by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner needs no interference. 10. The remaining another controversy in this case is as to whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire award including the penalty or not. 11. 10. The remaining another controversy in this case is as to whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire award including the penalty or not. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in case, if the Workmen Compensation Commissioner or this Court comes to the conclusion that deceased died during the course of discharge of his official duties, then the Insurance Company is liable to pay only the compensation with interest thereon, but the penalty imposed on the Insurance Company is not to be paid in any case. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention has cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of L.R. Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Mahavir Mahto and another, reported in (2002) 9 SCC 450 as well as two judgments rendered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Kali and another, reported in 2004 ACJ 614, passed by Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, and The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Meera Devi and another, reported in 2006 (1) U.D. 478 passed by Division Bench of this Court. 13. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the judgments cited in support of his submission. Paragraph 5 of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in L.R. Ferro Alloys Ltd.'s case (supra) reads as follows : "5. 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 our hands. In Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi this court after examining the entire scheme of 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 on the employer. 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 on 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. The appeal is allowed in part accordingly." 14. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court. 15. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the decisions cited before me as well as the various provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, it becomes quite clear that in all the accident cases when the employee dies during the course of discharge of his official duty, it is the statutory duty of the Insurance Company to satisfy the award as the judgment-debtors. However, it cannot be ignored that contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity against liabilities arising from the risk covered by the insurance policy while the liability for penalty arises from violation of provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. It is obvious that liability in the context of Workmen's Compensation Act, so far as the insurer is concerned, means only normal compensation and it does not include penalty. Workmen's Compensation Act has used expressions 'compensation', 'interest' and 'penalty' conveying different concepts and the amount of compensation or award of interest which is also compensatory in nature cannot be taken to include within its ambit the penalty. 16. In the present case, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has cast a liability on the insurer to pay the compensation and interest as well as the penalty, but in view of the aforesaid discussion the award passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner casting liability on the insurer to pay the compensation and interest, however, is not to be disturbed, however, the award passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner imposing a penalty against the insurer is liable to be set aside. In case, if any default has been committed by the owner of the tractor and the case is covered within the ambit of penalty, then the Workmen Compensation Commissioner may initiate the proceedings after giving an opportunity of being heard to the employer. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner thereafter can impose a penalty against the insurer in accordance with the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. 17. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that compensation as well as interest would be paid by the insurer-appellant, while the penalty imposed against the insurer is set aside.