JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. All these appeals, viz. the First Appeal Nos. 4085 and 4086 of 2009 and 3830 to 3840 of 2006, arise from the same incident/accident i.e. cyclone which devastated coastal areas in the State of Gujarat on 9th June, 1998. The claimants/victims in the claim cases Nos. 37 and 35 of 2000, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 38, 39, 40, 46 and 47 of 2005 and 2 of 2006 are the labourers commonly known as "Agariyas" working on the premises of the opponent No. 1-New Kandla Sault & Chemical Company Private Ltd. The appellant herein was the insurance company who held the insurance taken out by the opponent employer in respect of its workmen being the workmen compensation policy number was 412116011104. The policy was taken out for 40 contract labourers. 2. Since the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 did not pay the compensation to the victims/their heirs or legal representatives as required under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], the claimants filed the above referred workmen compensation cases before the learned Commissioner, Kutch at Gandhidham. Upon conclusion of the proceedings, the learned Commissioner passed the impugned award allowing the claims made by the claimants and awarded the amount as under :- W.C. No. Principal Amount + Cost. Interest Less T.D.S. Penalty Total Amount 37/2000 1,77,539 2,30,357 Nil 3,84,169 35/2000 Nil TDS 23,727 Nil Nil 18/2005 2,22,710 + 2,400 2,14,358 + 21,865 1,11,355 5,28,958 19/2005 1,46,200 + 2,400 1,40,717 14,353 73100 3,48,064 23/2005 2,21,370 + 2,400 2,13,069 21,733 1,10,685 5,25,791 24/2005 2,15,280 + 2,400 2,07,207 21,135 1,07,640 5,11,392 25/2005 1,97,060 + 2,400 1,89,670 19,346 98530 4,68,314 38/2005 2,25,220 + 2,400 2,16,774 22,111 1,12,610 5,34,893 39/2005 2,16,910 + 2,400 2,08,776 21,295 1,08,455 5,15,246 40/2005 1,37,781 + 2,400 1,32,614 13,527 68890 3,28,158 46/2005 1,77,354 + 2,400 1,70,703 17,412 88677 4,21,722 47/2005 1,97,060 + 2,400 1,89,670 19,346 98530 4,68,324 02/01/06 1,87,182 + 2,400 1,80,163 18,377 93591 4,44,959 3. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant insurance company is before this court. It has challenged the award to the limited extent whereby the liability of payment of interest and penalty is fastened upon the insurance company. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant insurance company is before this court. It has challenged the award to the limited extent whereby the liability of payment of interest and penalty is fastened upon the insurance company. The appellant insurance company has raised a contention that in view of the provisions contained under the Act and the scheme of the Act, the insurance company does not have any liability or obligation to pay interest and/or penalty. It is also contended that in the cases on hand, the policy expressly excluded the obligation to pay any amount towards interest and/or penalty and therefore also, the learned Commissioner is not right or justified in imposing the said burden on the insurance company. 4. Per contra, the claimants have contended that the learned Commissioner has not committed any error in quantifying and in directing payment of interest and/or penalty. The opponent No. 1, the principal employer, has also contended that it had immediately informed the insurance company about the incident/accident and that therefore, the delay in payment is wholly attributable to the insurance company. Consequently, the liability has been rightly imposed on the insurance company. 5. Heard Mr. Sunil B. Parikh, learned advocate for Mr. K.V. Gadhia, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. J.K. Parmar, learned advocate for the respondent. 6. The appellant insurance company has placed a copy of the insurance policy on record. The relevant clause of the insurance policy, reads thus:- "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 Accident Act, 1855. It is hereby understood and agreed that the Workmen's Compensation (Ahmedabad) Act of 1959, (8 of 1959) and 1962 (64 of 1962) and 1976 (65 of 1976) and 1984 (22 of 1984) are demed 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 W.C.Act, 1923 and (ii) any compensation payable on account of occupational diseases listed in Part 'C' of Schedule III of the W.C. Act, 1923." 7. 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 W.C.Act, 1923 and (ii) any compensation payable on account of occupational diseases listed in Part 'C' of Schedule III of the W.C. Act, 1923." 7. Relying upon the said clause, the insurance company has submitted that the liability or obligation towards payment of interest and/or penalty has been expressly excluded. In view of the said clause, it has been submitted that the burden to pay interest and/or penalty in the event of default by the employer was not covered and that therefore, the impugned award, so far as it imposes the obligation to pay penalty and/or interest on the insurance company, is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 8. The appellant-insurance company produced on record a copy of the policy in light of which the claims came to be made before the learned Commissioner. The relevant terms and conditions of the said policy have been extracted herein above in para 6 of this judgment. A glance at the proviso to the specific condition No. 1 (with regard to the laws which includes Workmen Compensation Act, 1923) makes it clear beyond doubt that the insurer and the insured did not intend to cover the risk of imposition of any penalty or interest on the employer in the event of his failure to discharge his obligation under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 within prescribed time and the said risk was expressly excluded from the risk covered by the policy. Thus, when such risk is not covered under the policy and the insurance company has not insured such risk, then, the insurance company cannot be directed to make payment of the amount towards interest and/or penalty unless the statute, like in case of Motor Vehicles Act, 1984, so provides, expressly or by implication. Actually, by virtue of the express terms in the subject policy, the risk towards the obligation to pay interest and/or penalty, has been expressly excluded. Actually, by virtue of the express terms in the subject policy, the risk towards the obligation to pay interest and/or penalty, has been expressly excluded. In view of such provision, it is not necessary to examine in present case the larger issue as to whether the insurance company would be liable to pay statutory interest, if and when awarded (in view of the delay caused in making payment of the compensation) by the learned Commissioner while passing the award and/or whether it would be liable to pay any amount towards penalty, if and when imposed by the learned Commissioner. 9. The policy taken out by the employer for covering his liability under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 does not have a character and status of a statutory policy like the one issued and taken out under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1984 and such a policy which is taken out by the employer to cover the liability under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 is purely in the realm of contract and therefore, would be governed by the terms and conditions mutually agreed and accepted by the parties to the contract. Hence, any risk, which is not included under the policy and/or is expressly excluded, cannot be transferred and/or imposed on the insurance company, unless law, as in the case of Motor Vehicles Act, 1984, would require. 10. Therefore, present appeals against award which imposes on the insurance company the liability to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and also the penalty to the tune of Rs. 88,770=00 deserves to be allowed and the impugned directions in the said award deserves to be quashed and set aside. It has been submitted at the bar that similar appeals arising from the common or similar award and pertaining to the very same incident/accident have been decided by the Court vide judgment dated 18th May, 2008 in First Appeal No. 1085 of 2007 whereby the appeal(S), preferred by the insurance company, has/have been allowed. Thus, the present appeals shall also follow the suit. 11. Accordingly, the impugned directions imposing the liability to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and also the penalty to the tune of Rs. 88,770=00 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is, however, clarified that the direction obliging the insurance company to pay the principal amount of compensation is not interfered with. 11. Accordingly, the impugned directions imposing the liability to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and also the penalty to the tune of Rs. 88,770=00 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is, however, clarified that the direction obliging the insurance company to pay the principal amount of compensation is not interfered with. The Appeals, to the aforesaid extent, are accordingly allowed. However, it is necessary to clarify and therefore, it is clarified that since the learned Commissioner has, by the impugned award, imposed the liability of payment of interest only on the insurance company and not on the employer/contractor, though the original claimants or the employer/contractor are not before the Court, considering the fact that the Act of 1923 is a beneficial legislation, it is directed that the liability to pay interest as directed by the learned Commissioner shall be jointly and severally of the employer and the contractor and so far as employer is concerned, he will be entitled to invoke the provisions under Section 12 of the Act, if the contractor does not make the payment. 12. Mr. Parikh, learned advocate has submitted and Mr. Parmar, learned advocate has confirmed that the appellant insurance company had, while preferring the appeals, deposited the entire awarded amount including the amounts towards compensation amount payable under the insurance as well as the amount payable towards interest and penalty. Learned counsel have also submitted that the learned Commissioner has, in the interregnum, disbursed the principal amount towards compensation. Since, the insurance company has not challenged the award so far as it relates to the compensation amount i.e. quantification of the amount towards compensation, any direction with regard to the said part of the award is not necessary. 13. It appears from the record and also from the submission of the learned counsel that the amount deposited towards interest and penalty is still in the custody of the learned Commissioner. It has been submitted that the amount is invested pursuant to the directions passed by the Court while admitting the appeals. 14. In that view of the matter, it would be open to the insurance company to make appropriate application, with a copy to the original claimants, to the learned Commissioner for refund of the amount deposited towards penalty and interest. 14. In that view of the matter, it would be open to the insurance company to make appropriate application, with a copy to the original claimants, to the learned Commissioner for refund of the amount deposited towards penalty and interest. As and when such application is made, the learned Commissioner shall, after verifying the record and the details about the deposited amount i.e. the extent of amount towards compensation and extent towards interest and the extent towards penalty, pass necessary orders in view of this judgment and refund the amount towards penalty and interest, to the insurance company. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. Appeal allowed.