JUDGMENT : H.K. RATHOD, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Y.K. Gadhia for appellant New India Assurance Company Ltd. learned Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah for respondent No. 1, learned Advocate Mr. KI Soni for respondent No. 2 and learned Advocate Mr. K.T. Dave for respondent No. 3. 2. Considering submissions made by learned advocates for respective parties, this appeal is admitted. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah waives notice of admission on behalf of respondent No. 1 and learned Advocate Mr. K.I. Soni waives notice of admission on behalf of respondent No. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. K.T. Dave waives notice of admission on behalf of respondent No. 3. In facts and circumstances of case and with consent of learned advocates for respective parties, this appeal is taken up for final hearing today. 3. By filing this appeal, appellant insurance company has challenged only interest amount and has not challenged amount of penalty and compensation. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Soni appearing for respondent No. 2 employer that before WC Commissioner, no notice was issued to employer by WC Commissioner and, therefore, they remained absent. Learned Advocate Mr. Soni raised contention before this court that in absence of employer, WC Commissioner has passed order against original opponent No. 1 present respondent No. 2 employer to pay Rs. 83893/- as penalty at the rate of 50 per cent of awarded principal amount of compensation. This direction issued by WC Commissioner to pay penalty against employer has been objected by learned advocate Mr. Soni. Learned Advocate Mr. Soni for respondent No. 2 submitted that respondent No. 2 employer wants to prefer appropriate application before WC Commissioner Kachchh at Bhuj. Learned Advocate Mr. Soni further submitted that such application is already preferred by employer before WC Commissioner. In view of that, this court is not expressing any opinion on merits in respect of order of penalty passed by WC Commissioner against respondent No. 2, whether said order is legal and valid or not and it is open for WC Commissioner to decide such application filed by present respondent No. 2 in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to all respective parties. 4. In respect to present appeal filed by insurance company, insurance company is challenging direction issued by WC Commissioner to pay amount of compensation, Rs. 1,67,785/- with 12 per cent interest. Learned Advocate Mr. 4. In respect to present appeal filed by insurance company, insurance company is challenging direction issued by WC Commissioner to pay amount of compensation, Rs. 1,67,785/- with 12 per cent interest. Learned Advocate Mr. Gadhia for appellant submitted that there is specific exclusion clause for amount of penalty and interest and there is no liability of insurance company to pay penalty and interest and it is liability of employer and, therefore, that part of order passed by WC Commissioner is required to be modified accordingly. Learned Advocate Mr. Soni for employer has submitted that employer has no objection to pay 12% interest on claim of Rs. 1,67,785/- as per order passed by WC Commissioner in favour of claimants but employer is challenging order of payment of penalty passed by WC Commissioner in absence of respondent No. 2. As per the contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Gadhia, as per policy, there is no liability of interest accepted by insurance company because this insurance policy which was issued to employer respondent No. 2 by appellant insurance company was under the provisions of the WC Act. Therefore, in light of this back ground and also considering decision of Hon'ble apex court in case of Kamla Chaturvedi, 2009 (1) LLJ 592, direction of the WC Commissioner directing appellant to pay 12 per cent interest is required to be quashed and set aside qua appellant and accordingly, direction of the WC Commissioner directing appellant to pay 12 per cent interest is quashed and set aside qua appellant insurance company and respondent no .2 employer is held liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on amount of Rs. 1,67,785/- from date of accident 26.11.2006 and accordingly, respondent No. 2 employer is directed to deposit 12 per cent interest upon amount of Rs. 1,67,785/- w.e.f. 26.11.2006 till date of deposit of such amount before WC Commissioner, Kachchh at Bhuj, within one month from the date of receiving copy of this order. In view of these observations and directions, this appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs. 5. As per certificate issued by Labour Court, Bhuj-Kachchh, appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Gandhidham Kachchh has deposited Rs. 2,13,915/- vide cheque No. 7266 dated 25.6.2009 drawn on Corporation Bank, Gandhidham Kutch Branch in name of Judge, Labour Court, Gandhidham Kutchchh as per pursis dated 1.7.2009 and Rs. 5. As per certificate issued by Labour Court, Bhuj-Kachchh, appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Gandhidham Kachchh has deposited Rs. 2,13,915/- vide cheque No. 7266 dated 25.6.2009 drawn on Corporation Bank, Gandhidham Kutch Branch in name of Judge, Labour Court, Gandhidham Kutchchh as per pursis dated 1.7.2009 and Rs. 4867/- deposited vide cheque No. 7267 dated 25.6.2009 drawn on Corporation Bank, Gandhidham Kutch Branch in name of Judge, Labour Court Gandhidham Kutch of TDS amount as per pursis dated 1.7.2009 submitted before labour Court in WC (NF) No. 11 of 2007. 6. Therefore, out of that total amount deposited by appellant insurance company as per said certificate, it is directed to WC Commissioner Kachchh at Bhuj to pay Rs. 1,67,785/- by way of an account payee cheque drawn in favour of claimant ABDULGANI ARAB KUMBHAR after proper verification and rest of amount is ordered to be refunded to appellant insurance company by way of an account payee cheque drawn in favour of New India Assurance Company Ltd. after proper verification. After the amount of 12 per cent interest as aforesaid is deposited by respondent No. 2 employer before WC Commissioner, it is also directed to WC Commissioner, Kachchh at Bhuj to pay same to claimant ABDULGANI ARAB KUMBHAR by way of an account payee cheque drawn in his favour after proper verification without any delay. With these directions, this appeal stands allowed to extent indicated herein above, in so far as it relates to question of payment of interest only. This Court has kept open question raised by respondent No. 2 in respect of penalty. For that, respondent No. 2 has already preferred necessary application before WC Commissioner. Therefore, let that application be decided by WC Commissioner in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to respective parties. Civil Application filed in this appeal for stay also stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.