JUDGMENT J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1. This appeal has been filed Under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 1st January, 2009 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. 2. The dependents of deceased-Syed Javed, have filed an application Under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation as the deceased was died during the course of employment. The Tribunal adjudicated the compensation and awarded the total sum of Rs. 4,33,820/-. It has further been directed that from the date of filing of the application i.e. 19th May, 2007 till its realization interest @ 12% per annum shall be payable. It has further been directed that the non-applicant shall pay the interest within 60 days. 3. Shri. J.M. Poonergar, learned Counsel for the Appellants, submits that the direction as issued by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for payment of the interest only against the employer is not in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kamla Chaturvedi v. National Insurance Co. and Ors., reported in 2009 MACD (SC) 4: 2009 (1) T.A.C. 1. In view of the aforesaid, it is urged that the interest may be awarded against the Insurance Company in the light of the said judgment. 4. On the other hand, Shri S.S. Chawla, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company, submits that the interest can be awarded against the Insurance Company from the date of its adjudication and not from the date of filing of the application and, therefore, the Commissioner has not committed any error in awarding the interest against the owner from the date of filing of the application. In view of the aforesaid, it is urged that the compensation as awarded by the Commissioner is just and proper and the interest has rightly been directed to be paid by the employer. 5. In the case of Kamla Chaturvedi (supra) the Apex Court in para 6, 7 and 8 has observed as under: 6. In Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and Ors. (1997) 8 SCC 1 : 1998 (1) T.A.C. 215, this Court observed that the Insurance Company is liable to pay not only the principal amount of compensation payable by the insured employer but also interest thereon if ordered by the Commissioner to be paid by the insured employer. In Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and Ors. (1997) 8 SCC 1 : 1998 (1) T.A.C. 215, this Court observed that the Insurance Company is liable to pay not only the principal amount of compensation payable by the insured employer but also interest thereon if ordered by the Commissioner to be paid by the insured employer. Insurance Company is liable to meet claim for compensation alongwith interest as imposed on insured employer by the Act on conjoint operation of Section 3 and 4A(3)(a) of the Act. It was, however, held that it was the liability of the insured employer alone in respect of additional amount of compensation by way of penalty Under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act. In New India Assurance Co.'s case (supra) and Ved Prakash Garg's case (supra) was distinguished on facts. It was observed that in the said case the Court was not concerned with a case where an accident had occurred by use of motor vehicle in respect whereof the contract the Insurance will be governed by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the M.V. Act). A contract of Insurance is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 (in short 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 per their own volition. The Act does not contain a provision like Section 148 of the M.V. Act where a statute does not provide for a compulsory insurance or accident thereof. The parties are free to choose their terms of contract. In that view of the matter contracting out so far as the reimbursement of amount of interest is concerned is not prohibited by a statute. This position have been reiterated in P.J. Narayan v. Union of India and Ors. 2006 5 S.C.C. 200. In the instant case the position is different. The accident in question arose on account of vehicular accident and provisions of M.V. Act are clearly applicable. We have gone through the policy of insurance and we find that no such exception as was the case in New India Assurance Co. 's case was stipulated in the policy of Insurance. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the interest. The further question arises as to from which date it would be paid. 8. In National Insurance Co. 's case was stipulated in the policy of Insurance. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the interest. The further question arises as to from which date it would be paid. 8. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 349 : 2007 (2) T.A.C. 3, it was inter alia, held as follows: Interest is payable Under Section 4A(3) if there is default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due. The question of liability Under Section 4A was dealt with by this Court in Maghar Singh v. Jashwant Singh (1998) 9 SCC 134 . By amending Act 30 of 1995, Section 4A of the Act was amended, inter-alia fixing the minimum rate of interest to be simple interest @ 12%. In the instant case, the accident took place after the amendment and, therefore, the rate of 12% as fixed by the High Court cannot be faulted. But the period as fixed by it is wrong. The starting point is on completion of one month from the date on which it fell due. Obviously it cannot be the date of accident. Since no indication is there as to when it becomes due, it has to be taken to be the date of adjudication of the claim. This appears to be so because Section 4A(1) prescribes that compensation Under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. The compensation becomes due on the basis of adjudication of the claim made. The adjudication Under Section 4 in some cases involves the assessment of loss of earning capacity by a qualified medical practitioner. Unless adjudication is done, question of compensation becoming due does not arise. The position becomes clearer on a reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 4A. It provides that provisional payment to the extent of admitted liability has to be made when employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed. The crucial expression is "falls due". Significantly, legislature has not used the expression "from the date of accident". Unless there is an adjudication, the question of an amount falling due does not arise. 6. In the present case, undisputedly, the insurance policy has been issued under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The crucial expression is "falls due". Significantly, legislature has not used the expression "from the date of accident". Unless there is an adjudication, the question of an amount falling due does not arise. 6. In the present case, undisputedly, the insurance policy has been issued under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. In such circumstances, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the principle amount of compensation as well as the interest. The Tribunal awarded the interest from the date of filing of the application and directed to deposit the same within a period of 60 days by the employer not against the Insurance Company. Such findings are unsustainable in law in view of the fact that the Insurance Company was covered by the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. 7. It is to be seen that whether the amount of interest has rightly been awarded by the Commissioner from the date of filing of the application. In the opinion of this Court, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, it is directed that the amount of compensation and the interest thereon @ 7.5% shall be payable by the Insurance Company from the date of filing of application till its decision. After one month from the day of the decision, the interest @ 12% shall be payable as per Section of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is allowed in part.