JUDGMENT Mr. Rajesh Bindal J:- This order shall dispose of FAO Nos. 1335 of 1989 and 589 of 1990, as same arise out of common order. 2. By filing appeal the Insurance company is seeking reduction of compensation awarded by the Commissioner under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act’) to the claimants, whereas by filing appeal, the claimants are seeking enhancement thereof. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Kirpal Singh (since deceased) was employed with M/s Pala Singh Joginder Singh as Truck driver, on monthly salary of Rs.1,000/-. On 22.8.1985, while on duty, he met with an accident and later on died in Civil Hospital, Karnal. At the time of death, he was about 42 years of age. The claim petition filed by his widow and daughter was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.63,194.40 along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application. Penalty of Rs.9,479.20 was also imposed on the Insurance company. It is this order which is impugned by both the parties in appeals before this court. 4. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the Commissioner has wrongly burdened the company by imposing interest on the amount of compensation from the date of application. 5. The second contention raised by learned counsel for the insurance company is regarding levy of penalty on account of delayed payment. He submitted that accident in the present case took place on 22.8.1985 and the claim petition was filed on 6.11.1985, which was decided on 29.9.1989. After the decision of the claim petition, the Insurance company had deposited the compensation in December 1989. The period for which the claim remained pending with the court, the claimant has been awarded interest @ 12% per annum. In support of his arguments, he relied upon judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg vs Premi Devi and others (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1, to submit that the penalty is the liability of the employer and not of the Insurance company as he was liable to pay the amount of compensation payable to the family of the deceased within one month in terms of the provisions of the Act. 6. No one has appeared for the claimants at the time of hearing. 7. Heard learned counsel for the insurance company and perused the paper-book. 8. 6. No one has appeared for the claimants at the time of hearing. 7. Heard learned counsel for the insurance company and perused the paper-book. 8. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the insurance company has not been able to point out any clause in terms of the policy which granted exemption to the insurance company from liability from payment of interest on the amount of compensation. Reference can be made to judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Kamla Chaturvedi vs National Isurance Company Limited and others [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 479] : 2009 ACJ 115, wherein it was held that the Insurance company cannot avoid its liability to pay interest on the ground that there is no contract entered into by it with the insured for payment of interest as there is no exception stipulated in the policy for payment of interest by insurance company. 9. The issue regarding entitlement of interest to the claimants on the amount of compensation, has also been gone into by this court in New India Assurance Company Limited vs Manphool Singh and others (2008-1) PLR 706, wherein following judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs Srinivas Sabata (1976) 1 SCC 289, it has been opined that the claimants shall be entitled to interest not from the date of order/award of the Commissioner, but on expiry of one month from the date of accident. 10. Accordingly, the claim made by the insurance company to that extent is rejected. 11. A perusal of the paper-book shows that the amount of penalty involved in the appeal is merely Rs.9,479.20. Keeping in view that amount involved in the present appeal is quite small and the accident had taken place more than 26 years back, I do not find any reason to interfere at this stage. 12. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed. 13. As regards the appeal filed by the claimants is concerned, no one has appeared in support of their claim. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is dismissed in default. ---------0.B.S.0------------