JUDGMENT P.K. Jaiswal, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') challenging the order dated 12.9.2000 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation No. 2, Gwaiior in Case No. 1 of 1995-W.C.A. (Fatal). 2. (a) In M.A. No. 734 of 2000 filed by the insurance company, Badri Prasad Tiwari, aged 20 years, husband of Ranidevi, respondent No. 1, died in a vehicular accident on 28.3.1994. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are widow and son of the deceased respectively. The respondent No. 3 is the wife of the respondent No. 2. They filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. The Commissioner by the impugned order has awarded an amount of Rs. 81,864 as compensation plus penalty of Rs. 40,000 on delay in paying the compensation and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation. Learned Commissioner held that the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 being the owner and driver of the vehicle respectively are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount along with interest but exonerated the appellant insurance company from payment of penalty and directed the respondent No. 4 to pay the amount of penalty. (b) Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that salary of the deceased was Rs. 1,500 per month and he specifically stated this fact in para 2 of his written statement. Vilyati Ram Suri, NAW 1, in para 1 of his statement has deposed that salary of the deceased was Rs. 1,500 per month. This witness in para 2 of his cross-examination admitted that he has not filed any document to prove that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 1,500 per month. It is also admitted by him that he is maintaining the attendance register, salary slip and register regarding payment of salary to the deceased. But, those documents were not filed and, therefore, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation after appreciating all the evidence of the parties rightly came to the conclusion that income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000 per month. The said finding recorded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation is based on appreciation of evidence on record and, therefore, No. interference in this appeal is warranted. 2,000 per month. The said finding recorded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation is based on appreciation of evidence on record and, therefore, No. interference in this appeal is warranted. On perusal of the record, I found that the claimants in para 11 of the claim petition stated that the amount of compensation was not paid in time and, therefore, they are entitled for penalty as per Section 4-A of the Act. On this question, issue No. 2 was framed. Vilyati Ram Suri, NAW 1, in his statement admitted that amount of compensation has not been deposited in time. In this appeal the plea of the learned Counsel for the appellant that No. liberty was given before imposing the penalty cannot be accepted because in the claim petition, the claimant specifically prayed for grant of penalty. The appellants after receipt of claim petition submitted their reply, the owner was also examined by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. The learned Commissioner after giving the opportunity to the parties passed an order imposing interest and penalty and, therefore, it cannot be said that order was passed without giving any opportunity to the appellant. (c) Learned Counsel for the insurance company drew my attention to the pleadings of the parties, statement of Sriram Tiwari, AW 2; Pratipal Singh Sandhu, DW 1 and submitted that petrol pump is in the name of father of the respondent No. 1 and as per policy, Exh. Dl, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. Pratipal Singh Sandhu, DW 1, in para 1 of his statement very categorically admitted that he was owner of the petrol pump and at present petrol pump is closed. This witness further admitted that in the year 1993, licence was granted to him for installation of petrol pump. The petrol pump was opened in the year 1994. The appellant and respondent No. 4 denied that on the date of accident, deceased Badri Prasad was working as a labourer. Pratipal Singh Sandhu in his cross-examination very categorically admitted that deceased has not filed any document to prove that he was under his employment on 28.3.1994. Naval Kishore Shrivastava, DW 2, who was working as cashier in the petrol pump of Pratipal Singh Sandhu also denied that deceased was working in his petrol pump. Pratipal Singh Sandhu in his cross-examination very categorically admitted that deceased has not filed any document to prove that he was under his employment on 28.3.1994. Naval Kishore Shrivastava, DW 2, who was working as cashier in the petrol pump of Pratipal Singh Sandhu also denied that deceased was working in his petrol pump. This witness also in his cross-examination admitted that the deceased has not filed any document or record of the employees/labourers who carried out work at the installation of petrol pump. (d) On the contrary, Sriram Tiwari, AW 2, in his written statement stated that on the date of accident, deceased was working as a labourer in the petrol pump of respondent No. 4 and his salary was Rs. 900 per month. At the time of death, he was 20 years of age and during the course of employment, he died on 28.3.1994. Banmali, AW 3 and Ranidevi made similar statements and supported the stand taken by Sriram Tiwari, AW 2. (e) The Commissioner after considering the evidence in detail came to the conclusion that deceased Badri Prasad was working as a labourer in the installation of petrol pump of respondent No. 4 and he died during the course of employment and, therefore, appellant and respondent No. 4 are liable to pay amount of compensation as per impugned order dated 12.9.2000. (f) I have perused the award of the Commissioner. The impugned order does not suffer from any serious infirmity. The Commissioner appreciated the evidence on record and held that deceased was a workman. The finding recorded by the Commissioner is finding of fact. No. substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal filed by the appellant has No. merit and is liable to be dismissed. 3. (a) M.A. No. 651 of 2001 is filed by insurance company challenging the order dated 13.10.2000 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation No. 2, Gwalior in Case No. 202-B of 1999-W.C. Act (Fatal). On death of Jagdish Prasad, driver of truck bearing registration No. MP 07-G 0730, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed an application under Sections 4, 10 and 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act on the ground that at the time of accident which occurred on 16.9.1999 the salary of the deceased was Rs. 2,500 + Rs. 50 as daily allowance. On death of Jagdish Prasad, driver of truck bearing registration No. MP 07-G 0730, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed an application under Sections 4, 10 and 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act on the ground that at the time of accident which occurred on 16.9.1999 the salary of the deceased was Rs. 2,500 + Rs. 50 as daily allowance. The owner of the vehicle in his written statement admitted that the deceased was driver in his truck and accident had occurred during the course of his employment. It is also averred that vehicle was insured by the appellant and, therefore, appellant-non-applicant No. 2, insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation along with the interest and penalty. (b) Suresh Kumar, NAW 1, owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 7, in para 5 of his reply averred that on the date of accident offending vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company. In reply it is nowhere stated that immediately after the accident the owner of the vehicle had intimated the insurance company about the accident, under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. The owner of the vehicle is liable to deposit the amount of compensation within a specified time before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. Suresh Kumar, NAW 1, owner of the vehicle in his cross-examination admitted that he was paying Rs. 1,500 per month as salary to the deceased. On the basis of the above admission made by the owner of the vehicle, the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation has held that earnings of the deceased was Rs. 1,500 per month at the time of death of the deceased, the deceased was 31 years of age and assessed the compensation amounting to Rs. 2,05,950 + Rs. 1,00,000 penalty and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the accident. The amount awarded by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation is just and proper and No. interference in this appeal is warranted. 4. In Misc. Appeal No. 359 of 2001 which is filed by the claimants, learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation after appreciating the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that deceased Jaswant Singh who was a cleaner of the vehicle died in an accident on 27.2.1998. He was murdered and his body was found in village Dugni which comes within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Jamnodh, District Dhar. He was murdered and his body was found in village Dugni which comes within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Jamnodh, District Dhar. He died during the course of employment. The appellants-claimants who are mother and father of the deceased stated that the deceased was cleaner of the vehicle and his income was Rs. 1,500 per month plus Rs. 30 per day as daily allowance. Insurance company in his written statement admitted that after the accident, No. intimation was given to them nor they had any knowledge about the accident. The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that income of the deceased was Rs. 800 per month and after applying the relevant multiplying factor, assessed the compensation of Rs. 88,548 + 9 per cent interest + Rs. 40,000 towards penalty and directed the respondent No. 2 to pay the amount of Rs. 88,548 and respondent No. 1 to pay the amount of Rs. 40,000 as penalty and interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. 5. In Misc. Appeal No. 516 of 2007 which is filed by the owner of the vehicle, learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation after appreciating the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that Santosh who was cleaner of the vehicle died in an accident between 1.5.2004 and 3.5.2004. He was murdered and his body was found in Megha Culvert which comes within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Jaitpura, Vrindavan, District Mathura. He died during the course of employment. The appellants-owner in their written statement very specifically admitted that the deceased was cleaner of the vehicle and his income was Rs. 1,500 per month. The insurance company in his written statement stated that after the accident No. intimation was given to them nor they had any knowledge about the accident. In view of the specific admission made by the owner of the vehicle in para 2 of his written statement, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the relation of employer and employee has not been proved before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation cannot be accepted. The learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000 per month and after applying relevant factor assessed the compensation of Rs. The learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000 per month and after applying relevant factor assessed the compensation of Rs. 2,22,710 + 12 per cent interest + 50 per cent penalty and directed the insurance company to pay the amount of Rs. 2,22,710 and for the rest of the amount, i.e., 50 per cent penalty and interest, the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation directed the owner of the vehicle to pay the same. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the insurance policy, Exh. P15 and submitted that Rs. 75 was paid towards extra premium. The risk of the deceased was covered and, therefore, they are not liable to pay the amount of interest and penalty as awarded by the impugned order. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the insurance company drew my attention to Exh. D2 and submitted that the owner of the vehicle never intimated about accident nor as per terms and conditions the appellant insurance company is liable to pay the amount of penalty and interest. In support of the said contention he drew my attention to the decision of this Court in the case of Ranno Devi v. Surendra Kumar 2007 ACJ 625 (MP) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. . 8. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of interest in view of the law laid down by the single Bench of this Court in the case of Ranno Devi v. Surendra Kumar 2007 ACJ 625 (MP); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. and decision of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. (2006) II LLJ 782 SC . 9. The question regarding payment of interest will be considered along with other appeals, i.e., M.A. No. 651 of 2001, M.A. No. 516 of 2007 and M.A. No. 359 of 2001. In this bunch of appeals, a short question is involved whether the insurance company is liable to pay penalty and interest under Section 4-A(3) of the Act? 10. 9. The question regarding payment of interest will be considered along with other appeals, i.e., M.A. No. 651 of 2001, M.A. No. 516 of 2007 and M.A. No. 359 of 2001. In this bunch of appeals, a short question is involved whether the insurance company is liable to pay penalty and interest under Section 4-A(3) of the Act? 10. Learned Counsel for the claimants and owner of the offending vehicle drew my attention to the decisions of the Apex Court and High Court in the case of L.R. Ferror Alloys Ltd. v. (2001) ILLJ 181 SC ; P.J. Narayan v. ; Mamta Travels v. ; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mithlesh Kumari 2007 (1) TAC 469 (P & H); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ravindra Sharma 2007 (1) TAC 744 ; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shakuntla Devi 2007 (1) TAC 986; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. ; Gurdeb Singh v. ; Vershaben Mahendra Kumar Sachania v. Rahimbhai Jilmahmahmadbhai Dheba 2006 (1) TAC 1081 (Guj); United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Santosh Kanwar MACD 2007 (2) (Raj) 1266; and submitted that as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ved Prakash Garg v. AIR 1997 SC 3854 , the insurance company is liable to pay the interest on the amount of compensation under Section 4-A(3) of the Act. 11. Mr. K . N. Gupta, Senior Advocate along with Mr. R.K. Mishra, Advocate and Mr. R.P. Gupta and Mrs. Meena Singhal, Advocates are appearing on behalf of the owners of the vehicle. The claimants have submitted that considering the policy which is on record, it did not exclude the liability of the insurer for payment of interest and penalty under the Act, there was No. contracting out of the aforesaid liability. It is submitted that additional premium was paid to the insurance company and in the policy, there is No. exclusion clause to exclude the insurance company from payment of interest and penalty and if there is No. exclusion in the policy, then the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of interest and penalty. 12. On the other hand, Mr. B.N. Malhotra, Mr. S.S. Bansal along with Mr. 12. On the other hand, Mr. B.N. Malhotra, Mr. S.S. Bansal along with Mr. R.V. Sharma, Advocates, who are appearing on behalf of the insurance company have submitted that in light of the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Ved Prakash Garg AIR 1997 SC 3854 and Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya's case (2006) II LLJ 782 SC , there is a statutory liability under the Act on the insurer to make the payment of compensation only, until and unless, it is provided in the policy and in absence of any condition regarding payment of interest and penalty, the insurance companies are not liable to pay the said amount and No. liability can be fastened on them. Learned Commissioner committed error in directing the insurance company to pay the amount of interest and penalty. In support of the said arguments, they placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. ; (2) Ranno Devi v. Surendra Kumar 2007 ACJ 625 (MP); (3) K.L. Bihani v. ; and (4) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bahadur Singh 2000 MPJR (1) 41. 13. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 14. In the case of Ved Prakash Garg AIR1997SC3854 , the Apex Court held the following in paras 14 and 19 which read as under: (14) On a conjoint operation of the relevant schemes of the aforesaid twin Acts, in our view, there is No. escape from the conclusion that the insurance companies will be liable to make good not only the principal amounts of compensation payable by insured employers but also interest thereon, if ordered by the Commissioner to be paid by the insured employees. Reason for this conclusion is obvious. As we have noted earlier the liability to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'the Compensation Act') gets foisted on the employer provided it is shown that the workman concerned suffered from personal injury, fatal or otherwise, by any motor accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Reason for this conclusion is obvious. As we have noted earlier the liability to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'the Compensation Act') gets foisted on the employer provided it is shown that the workman concerned suffered from personal injury, fatal or otherwise, by any motor accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Such an accident is also covered by the statutory coverage contemplated by Section 147 of the M.V. Act read with the identical provisions under the very contracts of insurance reflected by the policy which would make the insurance company liable to cover all such claims for compensation for which statutory liability is imposed on the employer under Section 3 read with Section 4-A of the Compensation Act. All these provisions represent a well knit scheme for computing the statutory liability of the employers in cases of such accidents to their workmen. As we have seen earlier while discussing the scheme of Section 4-A of the Compensation Act the legislative intent is clearly discernible that once compensation falls due and within one month it is not paid by the employer then as per Section 4-A(3)(a) interest at the permissible rate gets added to the said principal amount of compensation as the claimants would stand deprived of their legally due compensation for a period beyond one month which is statutorily granted to the employer concerned to make good his liability for the benefit of the claimants whose breadwinner might have either been seriously injured or might have lost his life. Thus so far as interest is concerned it is almost automatic once default, on the part of the employer in paying the compensation due, takes place beyond the permissible limit of one month. No. element of penalty is involved therein. It is a statutory elongation of the liability of the employer to make good the principal amount of compensation within permissible time-limit during which interest may not run but otherwise liability of paying interest on delayed compensation will ipso facto follow. Even though the Commissioner under these circumstances can impose a further liability on the employer under circumstances and within limits contemplated by Section 4-A(3)(a) still the liability to pay interest on the principal amount under the said provision remains a part and parcel of the statutory liability which is legally liable to be discharged by the insured employer. Even though the Commissioner under these circumstances can impose a further liability on the employer under circumstances and within limits contemplated by Section 4-A(3)(a) still the liability to pay interest on the principal amount under the said provision remains a part and parcel of the statutory liability which is legally liable to be discharged by the insured employer. Consequently such imposition of interest on the principal amount would certainly partake the character of the legal liability of the insured employer to pay the compensation amount with due interest as imposed upon him under the Compensation Act. Thus the principal amount as well as the interest made payable thereon would remain part and parcel of the legal liability of the insured to be discharged under the Compensation Act and not dehors it. It, therefore, cannot be said by the insurance company that when it is statutorily and even contractually liable to reimburse the employer qua his statutory liability to pay compensation to the claimants in case of such motor accidents to his workmen, the interest on the principal amount which almost automatically gets foisted upon him once the compensation amount is not paid within one month from the date it fell due, would not be a part of the insured liability of the employer. No. question of justification by the insured employer for the delay in such circumstances would arise for consideration. It is of course true that one month's period as contemplated under Section 4-A(3) may start running for the purpose of attracting interest under Sub-clause (a) thereof in case where provisional payment has to be made by the insured employer as per Section 4-A(2) of the Compensation Act from the date such provisional payment becomes due. But when the employer does not accept his liability as a whole under circumstances enumerated by us earlier then Section 4-A(2) would not get attracted and one month's period would start running from the date on which due compensation payable by the employer is adjudicated upon by the Commissioner and in either case the Commissioner would be justified in directing payment of interest in such contingencies not only from the date of the award but also from the date of the accident concerned. Such an order passed by the Commissioner would remain perfectly justified on the scheme of Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Compensation Act. Such an order passed by the Commissioner would remain perfectly justified on the scheme of Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Compensation Act. But similar consequence will not follow in a case where additional amount is added to the principal amount of compensation by way of penalty to be levied on the employer under circumstances contemplated by Section 4-A(3)(b) of the Compensation Act after issuing the show cause notice to the employer concerned who will have reasonable opportunity to show cause why on account of some justification on his part for the delay in payment of the compensation amount he is not liable for this penalty. However, if ultimately, the Commissioner after giving reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause takes the view that there is No. justification for such delay on the part of the insured employer and because of his unjustified-delay and due to his own personal fault he is held responsible for the delay, then the penalty would get imposed on him. That would add a further sum up to 50 per cent on the principal amount by way of penalty to be made good by the defaulting employer. So far as this penalty amount is concerned it cannot be said that it automatically flows from the main liability incurred by the insured employer under the Compensation Act. To that extent such penalty amount as imposed upon the insured employer would get out of the sweep of the term liability incurred' by the insured employer as contemplated by the proviso to Section 147(1)(b) of the M.V. Act as well as by the terms of the insurance policy found in provisos (b) and (c) to Sub-section (1) of Section II thereof. On the aforesaid interpretation of these two statutory schemes, therefore, the conclusion becomes inevitable that when an employee suffers from a motor accident injury while on duty on the motor vehicle belonging to the insured employer, the claim for compensation payable under the Compensation Act along with interest thereon, if any, as imposed by the Commissioner, under Sections 3 and 4-A(3)(a) of the Compensation Act will have to be made good by the insurance company jointly with the insured employer. But so far as the amount of penalty imposed on the insured employer under contingencies contemplated by Section 4-A(3)(b) is concerned as that is on account of personal fault of the insured not backed up by any justifiable cause, the insurance company cannot be made liable to reimburse that part of the penalty amount imposed on the employer. The latter because of his own fault and negligence will have to bear the entire burden of the said penalty amount with proportionate interest thereon if imposed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. (19) As a result of the aforesaid discussion it must be held that the question posed for our consideration must be answered partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative. In other words, the insurance company will be liable to meet the claim for compensation along with interest as imposed on the insured employer by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner under the Compensation Act on the conjoint operation of Section 3 and Section 4-A Sub-section (3)(a) of the Compensation Act. So far as additional amount of compensation by way of penalty imposed on the insured employer by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner under Section 4-A(3)(b) is concerned, however, the insurance company would not remain liable to reimburse the said claim and it would be the liability of the insured employer alone. 15. In the case of L.R. Ferror Alloys Ltd. v. (2001) ILLJ 181 SC is relevant which reads as under: (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. AIR 1997 SC 3854 , 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 along with the insured employer. Therefore, claim for compensation along with interest will have to be made good jointly by the insurance company along 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. 16. In the case of P.J. Narayan v. reads as under: This writ petition is for the purpose of directing insurance company to delete the clause in the insurance policy which provides that in case of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the insurance company will not be liable to pay interest. We see No. substance in the writ petition. There is No. statutory liability on the insurance company. The statutory liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act is on the employer. An insurance is a matter of contract between the insurance company and the insured. It is always open to the insurance company to refuse to insure. Similarly, they are entitled to provide by contract that they will not take on the liability for interest. In the absence of any statute to that effect, insurance company cannot be forced by courts to take on liabilities which they do not want to take on. The writ petition is dismissed. No. order as to costs. 17. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. (2006) II LLJ  782 SC are relevant which reads as under: (13) Section 12 of the Act provides for the mode and manner of payment of compensation by a principal employer and/or his contractor. Section 17 of the Act nullifies contracting out in the following terms: 17. Contracting out.--Any contract or agreement whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, whereby a workman relinquishes any right of compensation from the employer for personal injury arising out of or in the course of the employment, shall be null and void insofar as it purports to remove or reduce the liability of any person to pay compensation under this Act. (14) By reason of the provisions of the Act, an employer is not statutorily liable to enter into a contract of insurance. Where, however, a contract of insurance is entered into by and between the employer and the insurer, the insurer shall be liable to indemnify the employer. The insurer, however, unlike under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act does not have a statutory liability. Section 17 of the Act does not provide for any restriction in the matter of contracting out by the employer vis-a-vis the insurer. (15) The terms of a contract of insurance would depend upon the volition of the parties. A contract of insurance is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act. In terms of the provisions of the Insurance Act, an insured is bound to pay premium which is to be calculated in the manner provided for therein. With a view to minimise his liability, an employer can contract out so as to make the insurer not liable as regards indemnifying him in relation to certain matters which do not strictly arise out of the mandatory provisions of any statute. Contracting out, as regards payment of interest by an employer, therefore, is not prohibited in law. (19) As indicated hereinbefore, a contract of insurance is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act. Unless the said contract is governed by the provisions of a statute, the parties are free to enter into a contract as for their own volition. The Act does not contain a provision like Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Where a statute does not provide for a compulsory insurance or the extent thereof, it will bear repetition to state, the parties are free to choose their own terms of contract. In that view of the matter, contracting out, so far as reimbursement of amount of interest is concerned, in our opinion, is not prohibited by a statute. (21) For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is not liable for the interest. However, we make it clear that the employer shall be liable to pay the amount of interest to the claimant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be No. order as to costs. 18. The Supreme Court in its reasoned judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. The appellant is not liable for the interest. However, we make it clear that the employer shall be liable to pay the amount of interest to the claimant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be No. order as to costs. 18. The Supreme Court in its reasoned judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. (2007) ILLJ 1035 SC , has held that the starting point of interest is on completion of one month from the date on which it fell due and it cannot be the date of accident. 19. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mamta Travels , after considering the terms and conditions of the policy held that there is No. contracting out of the liability to make the payment of interest. The premium has been realised by the insurer to cover the risk of owner, driver and two workmen. It is also held that the policy did not exclude the liability of insurance company for payment of interest and held that the liability for penalty remains upon the owner as it was his liability which he was required to fulfil, he did not make the payment of compensation to the workman which he could have recovered from insurer, thus, penalty has to be borne by the owner and the liability for interest has to be borne jointly and severally by the owner and insurer. 20. The issue whether the insurance company is liable for payment of interest on the compensation amount has been discussed recently by the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. (2006) II LLJ 782 SC . According to their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, unlike the requirement of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, there is No. provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act for an employer to take up the insurance policy. The only prohibition contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act is contained in Section 17, which deals with a contract or agreement between a workman and employer. According to the said provision, a contract or agreement whereby a workman relinquishes any right of compensation from the employer for personal injury arising out of or in the course of employment shall be null and void insofar as it purports to remove or reduce the liability of any person to pay compensation under this Act. According to the said provision, a contract or agreement whereby a workman relinquishes any right of compensation from the employer for personal injury arising out of or in the course of employment shall be null and void insofar as it purports to remove or reduce the liability of any person to pay compensation under this Act. Hence the workman is not permitted to contract out of and to waive the liability of an employer under this Act but the employer and the insurance company are free to contracting terms of the insurance as per their own volition. According to the Apex Court, it is for the insurance company to expressly state its non-liability for the payment of interest payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Unless such a stipulation is made, the insurance company will be held liable for such payment. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya (supra), insurance company had clearly expressed its intention by incorporating the stipulation in the insurance policy for non-payment of interest. Under those circumstances, the Apex Court has held that the insurance company would not be liable. 21. In the case of Ved Prakash Garg's case AIR 1997 SC 3854 , the Apex Court has clearly stated that where the insurance company had insured the employer-owner of the vehicle against the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it would be liable for payment of interest upon imposition against the employer. 22. In the present case before us, the learned Counsel for the insurance company have not been able to prove that the insurance company had expressly stipulated its non-liability for payment of interest. According to the insurance policy which is on record, there is No. such stipulation. In the absence of such stipulation, it cannot be said that the insurance company is not liable to pay the interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. 23. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mithlesh Kumari 2007 (1) TAC 469 (P & H), the learned single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in absence of exclusion clause in the insurance policy, the insurance company is liable to pay interest. Similar view is taken by the learned Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhupinder Kaur. Similar view is taken by the learned Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhupinder Kaur. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shakuntla Devi 2007 (1) TAC 986 (P & H), the learned single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in view of the law laid down in the case of Ved Prakash Garg AIR1997SC3854 , the insurance company is liable to pay the interest on the amount of compensation unless and until there existed any clause in the insurance policy, which specifically provided that the insurance company shall not be liable to make the payment of interest on the amount of compensation awarded, the insurance company is liable to make payment of interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 24. Mrs. Meena Singhal, Advocate, who is appearing in M.A. No. 651 of 2001 drew my attention to the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. and submitted that apart from the interest on the amount of compensation, the insurance company is also liable to pay the amount of penalty under the provisions of Section 4-A(3)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 25. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. , the insurance company accepted additional premium to cover all liabilities incurred by the insured under Workmen's Compensation Act. The insurance company on payment of additional premium had agreed in the light of Endorsement No. 16 of the policy to cover all liabilities incurred by the insured under the Workmen's Compensation Act and, therefore, the Division Bench has held that the insurance company cannot deny the liability to reimburse the penalty amount. 26. Here, in the present case, learned Counsel for the claimants failed to point out that the additional premium of Rs. 13 charged by the insurer covers the liability for payment of penalty nor she pointed out such endorsement/terms and conditions of the policy, Exh. D2, by which insurance company agreed to cover all the liabilities incurred by the insured. Therefore, the said Division Bench's decision of Rajasthan High Court cited by learned Counsel for the claimants will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 27. Mrs. D2, by which insurance company agreed to cover all the liabilities incurred by the insured. Therefore, the said Division Bench's decision of Rajasthan High Court cited by learned Counsel for the claimants will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 27. Mrs. Meena Singhal, learned Counsel for the claimants also drew my attention to the single Bench decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Santosh Kanwar MACD 2007 (2) (Raj) 1266. In this case, learned single Judge has held that in view of the series of recent judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the insurer has rightly been held liable for interest and penalty. Para 5 is relevant which reads as under: (5) I have considered the submissions and find that in view of the series of recent judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the insurer has rightly been held liable for interest and penalty. So far quantum of interest is concerned, that also is well supported by law. Then, so far as the contention about age of the deceased is concerned, it is a pure finding of fact, while appeal under Section 30 lies only on the substantial question of law. 28. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Santosh Kanwar MACD 2007 (2) (Raj) 1266, the learned single Judge without discussing the whole facts and without citing the decision of the Apex Court whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that insurance company is liable to pay interest and penalty, dismissed the appeal of the insurance company. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mamta Travels , the decision of the learned single Judge of Rajasthan High Court will not be applicable nor the claimants will get any benefit from the said judgment. 29. Learned Counsel for the insurance company drew my attention to the format of the workmen's compensation policy. The relevant para whereby the liability of the insurance company is excluded by a contract of insurance, reads as under: Law(s) 1. The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and subsequent amendments of the said Act prior to the date of the issue of policy. 2. The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The relevant para whereby the liability of the insurance company is excluded by a contract of insurance, reads as under: Law(s) 1. The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and subsequent amendments of the said Act prior to the date of the issue of policy. 2. The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. It is hereby understood and agreed that the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act of 1959 (8 of 1959) and 1962 (64 of 1962) and 1976 (65 of 1976) and 1984 (22 of 1984) are deemed to be added to the Laws set out, in the Schedule to the policy: Provided that the insurance granted hereunder is not extended to include: (i) any interest and/or penalty imposed on the insured on account of his/their failure to comply with the requirements laid down under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923; and (ii) any compensation payable on account of occupational diseases listed in Para 'C of Schedule III to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 30. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel who are appearing for the insurance company that in the present bunch of appeals, the insurance policy is on record but in the said insurance policy, there is No. clause which excluded the insurance company from payment of interest and penalty imposed on the insured on account of their failure to comply with the requirements laid down under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 31. The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Gurdeb Singh , has held that if the liability of payment of interest on the awarded amount was excluded by the contract of insurance that was entered into between the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company and if such liability was not excluded by specific term of contract of insurance, the insurance company would certainly be liable for payment of interest which liability has been fastened by the statutory provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 upon the insurer of the vehicle. 32. 32. The Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Vershaben Mahendra Kumar Sachania 2006 (1) TAC 1081 (Guj), has held that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ved Prakash Garg AIR 1997 SC 3854 and L.R. Ferror Alloys Ltd. (2001) I LLJ 181 SC , insurance company is liable to pay interest awarded on the amount of compensation. 33. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. and Ranno Devi v . Surendra Kumar 2007 ACJ 625 (MP), there was a condition in the policy that the insurance company shall not be liable to pay the interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and, therefore, learned single Judge has held that insurance company has confined its liability to the amount of compensation. 34. In the case of K.L. Bihani v. , legal heirs of the deceased on the death of deceased who was working as driver on jeep filed a claim petition on 7.4.1998. On 9.7.2004, they withdrew their claim petition and filed a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act on 27.7.2004. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on 3.7.2006 had passed an order directing the owner and insurer to pay the amount of compensation. During pendency of the proceedings, the insurance company on 20.1.2006 deposited an amount of compensation. The learned single Judge relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. (2007) I LLJ 1035 SC , has held that the starting point of interest is on completion of one month from the date on which it fell due and it cannot be the date of accident and held that the total amount of compensation was already deposited with the learned Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act and quashed the order by holding that the owner is not liable to pay the amount of interest. In respect of penalty, it is held that the owner of the offending vehicle has not made any efforts for depositing any provisional amount of compensation with the workmen's compensation authority and on the contrary, he denied the responsibility to pay compensation amount and amount of compensation was not deposited by the owner but it was deposited by the insurance company at later stage, the penalty of 50 per cent of the awarded compensation amount, awarded by the Commissioner is just and proper. 35. Here, in all these cases, it is not the case of insurance company that No. sooner they came to know about the accident, they provisionally deposited the amount of compensation before the authority and, therefore, they are liable to pay interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 36. The Division Bench of Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bahadur Singh 2000 (1) MPJR 41, has held that the insurance company was not liable to pay penalty amount, however, it was under obligation to pay the principal amount of compensation along with interest as interest is not penalty. The Division Bench has taken this view on the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ved Prakash Garg v. AIR 1997 SC 3854 . 37. For the above-mentioned reasons, I am of the considered view that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ved Prakash Garg, AIR 1997 SC 3854 , the insurance company would be liable for payment of interest upon imposition against the employer unless and until the insurance company had expressly stipulated its non-liability for the payment of interest. In this bunch of appeals, the insurance policy is on record. According to the insurance policy, there is No. such stipulation. In absence of such stipulation, the insurance company is liable to pay the interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. In this bunch of appeals, the insurance policy is on record. According to the insurance policy, there is No. such stipulation. In absence of such stipulation, the insurance company is liable to pay the interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. However, the insurance company is not liable to pay penalty, it is the liability of the owner because he did not make the payment of compensation in time as per provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which he could have recovered from the insurance company, therefore, the liability for payment of penalty is of the owner. 38. In the result, all the appeals are allowed in part, but without any order as to costs.