Judgment 1. These appeals have come up today for admission. The substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in all the five appeals being common, they are taken up together for final disposal in the presence of counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The brief facts in each of the case are as under: (a) M.F.A. No.5203/2007: The claimant an employee under 1st respondent in their Coffee estate met with an accident on 28.03.2003 at about 12.20 p.m. due to malfunctioning of pepper grading machine resulting in amputation of her right hand. Thereafter, she filed claim petition seeking compensation from her employer - first respondent and also the second respondent – insurance company by filing claim petition in C.R.No.15/2003. In the said proceedings, after hearing the parties, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.2,48,232/- payable with interest @ 12% from the 30th day of accident till the date of deposit and also fixed the liability to pay the entire amount of compensation along with interest on the second respondent-insurance company in the said proceedings. The second respondent – insurance company being aggrieved by the rate of interest and liability to pay has come up in his appeal challenging the order insofar as it pertains to the rate of interest and liability to pay interest. (b) M.F.A. No.5202/2007: This petition was filed by claimant for having suffered injuries to his back while lifting the pulping machine in the premises of 1st respondent Coffee estate in the course of his employment. The said accident has taken place on 05.10.2001. In this behalf claim petition was filed by him in CR.No.9/2003 seeking compensation from his employer, 1st respondent and insurer, 2nd respondent. In the said proceedings on appreciation of the pleading, oral and documentary evidence available on record Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation allowed the claim petition awarding compensation to the claimant in a sum of Rs.1,58,532/- payable with interest at 12% from 30th day of accident till date of deposit and fastened liability to pay compensation and as well as interest on 2nd respondent insurance company. The insurance company being aggrieved by the rate of interest and also liability to pay interest on the compensation has come up in this appeal challenging the same. The insurance company being aggrieved by the rate of interest and also liability to pay interest on the compensation has come up in this appeal challenging the same. (c) M.F.A. No.5204/2007: The claimant K.Murugan who was working in the 1st respondent coffee estate suffered fracture of right shoulder while discharging his duty in the course of his employment with 1st respondent in their premises on 20.12.2002. In this behalf he suffered he preferred claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in CR.No.25/2003 against his employer and as well as insurer. In the said proceedings on appreciation of the pleading, oral and documentary evidence available on record Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation allowed the claim petition awarding compensation to the claimant in a sum of Rs.90,429/- payable with interest at 12% from 30th day of the accident till date of deposit and fastened liability to pay compensation and as well as interest on the 2nd respondent insurance company. The insurance company being aggrieved by the rate of interest and also the liability to pay interest on the compensation has come up in this appeal challenging the same. (d) M.F.A. No.5205/2007: Claimant P.Raju, who was working in the1st respondent coffee estate met with an accident on 19.1.2003 while he was discharging his duties in the said estate in the course of his employment resulting in fracture to his left elbow. In respect of the injuries he suffered he preferred claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in CR.No.1/2005 against his employer and as well as insurer. In the said proceedings on appreciation of the pleading, oral and documentary evidence available on record Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation allowed the claim petition awarding compensation to the claimant in a sum of Rs.62,889/- payable with interest at 12% from 30th day of accident till date of deposit and fastened liability to pay compensation and as well as interest on 2nd respondent insurance company. The insurance company being aggrieved by the rate of interest and the liability to pay interest on compensation has come up in this appeal challenging the same. (e) M.F.A. No.5206/2007: The claimant employed in 1st respondent coffee estate was assigned the job of cooking in the premises of Manager of 1st respondent. The insurance company being aggrieved by the rate of interest and the liability to pay interest on compensation has come up in this appeal challenging the same. (e) M.F.A. No.5206/2007: The claimant employed in 1st respondent coffee estate was assigned the job of cooking in the premises of Manager of 1st respondent. On 26.7.2001 while discharging his duties he injured his right index finger and he being a diabetic, said injury got aggravated and as a result he had to undergo prolonged treatment. In respect of the injuries he suffered he preferred claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in CR.No.5/2003 against his employer and as well as insurer. In the said proceedings on appreciation of pleading, oral and documentary evidence available on record Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation allowed the claim petition awarding compensation to the claimant in a sum of Rs.58,738/- payable with interest at 12% from 30th day of accident till date of deposit and fastened liability to pay compensation and as well as interest on 2nd respondent insurance company. The insurance company being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, rate of interest awarded thereon and liability to pay interest on the compensation has come up in this appeal challenging the same. 3. This Court at the time of admission of these matters framed the following substantial question of law, which arises for consideration in all the aforesaid five appeals, which reads as under: “(1) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was justified in fastening the liability to pay compensation, on the Insurance company, when the said question of law is conclusively decided by the Apex Court in the matter of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Harshadbai Amruthbai Modhiya and Another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 192 ?” (2) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was justified in awarding interest at 12% from 30th date if accident, contrary to the ruling of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Mohd. Nasir reported in 2009 AIR SCW 3717? Harshadbai Amruthbai Modhiya and Another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 192 ?” (2) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was justified in awarding interest at 12% from 30th date if accident, contrary to the ruling of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Mohd. Nasir reported in 2009 AIR SCW 3717? This court also framed one more substantial question of law to be decided with reference to M.F.A. No.5206/2007, where the appellant insurance company in addition to challenging the liability to pay interest and rate of interest has also challenged the quantum of compensation, which is as under: “(3) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was justified in taking the whole body disability of the claimant @ 20% in the absence of acceptable medical evidence in support thereof?” 4. Heard the Counsel for appellant/insurance company in all the appeals and respondents. On appreciation of the pleadings, finding of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in each of the judgments and order which are impugned in these appeals this Court answer the 1st and 2nd common substantial question of law framed in respect of all the five appeals in the negative. The substantial question of law so far as it arises in M.F.A. No.5206/2007 also in the negative for the following: REASONS 5. Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act there is an obligation on the employer to pay compensation as and when it falls due. Section 4-A(3)(a) and (b) of the Act provides that whenever there is failure on the part of employer to pay compensation adjudicated by Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation as and when it falls due there is liability on the employer to pay interest on the compensation awarded. The Act also specifies the percentage of interest that is required to be paid. In the aforesaid proceedings initiated by the claimant seeking compensation the primary liability to pay compensation and as well as interest is on the employer. However, the employer can enter into an agreement with insurance company and seek indemnification of the same by obtaining necessary policy in that behalf. The liability of insurance company is subject to the terms of policy. In the instant case, the policy under which insurance company has agreed to indemnify the liability of employer contains an endorsement, which excludes its liability to pay interest. 6. The liability of insurance company is subject to the terms of policy. In the instant case, the policy under which insurance company has agreed to indemnify the liability of employer contains an endorsement, which excludes its liability to pay interest. 6. The inclusion of such endorsement in the policy is upheld by this Court in the matter of National Insurance Co., Chitradurga –Vs. – A.Gopala Reddy, reported in ILR 2001 Kar 1546, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. – Smt. Nagarathna and Others, reported in ILR 2003 Kar 4825 and also the Apex Court in the matter of Ved Prakash Garg – vs. _ Premi Devi reported in AIR 1997 SC 3854 . In the said judgment paragraph 16 which is relevant reads as under:- “In the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., V.Raju (1994 Acc CJ 191)(supra) a Bench of two learned Judges of the Karnataka High Court on the express terms of the Insurance Policy in that case took the view that the Policy did not extend to indemnify the insured in respect of any interest and / or penalty which may be imposed on the insured on account of his failure to comply with requirements of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There was an express exclusion clause qua this liability under the Insurance Policy and consequently the Karnataka High Court rightly came to the conclusion on the facts of that case that liability arising under Section 4A(3) of the Compensation Act to pay interest on the principal amount as imposed on the insured was not required to be set by the insurance company. Said judgment proceeds on its own facts. It is of no real assistance for resolving the present controversy. The second judgment relied upon by the Himachal Pradesh High Court is rendered by a learned single judge of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Jayantilal and Co. (1992 Acc CJ 286)(supra). It has laid down that penalty under section 4A(3) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is imposed on the owner of the offending truck for remaining indifferent to his statutory liability to make payment in time. Such a liability arising out of personal fault of the insured employer is not required to be met by the insurance company. It has laid down that penalty under section 4A(3) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is imposed on the owner of the offending truck for remaining indifferent to his statutory liability to make payment in time. Such a liability arising out of personal fault of the insured employer is not required to be met by the insurance company. The aforesaid view of the single judge of the Gujrat High Court is in consonance with the scheme of the Compensation Act as well as the Motor Vehicles Act as discussed by us earlier. Therefore, in our view, it lays down the correct legal position so far as the penalty claims are concerned. However, in so far as the aforesaid decision takes the view that the insurance company would not be liable even to meet the claim of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation as imposed upon the insured employer under Section 4A (3) of the Compensation Act, the same is not borne out from the scheme of the aforesaid two Acts and to that extent the said decision has to be overruled. We may in this connection refer to a latter division Bench judgment of the Gujrat High Court in the case of Radhabehn(1994 Acc CJ 404)(supra) wherein the Division Bench of the High Court has taken the view that when penalty is imposed on the employer under Section 4A(3) it is on account of the default and negligence of the employer for which he is personally responsible and the legislature would never be said to have intended that there should be a compulsory insurance covering the liability of an employer for payment of penalty. So far as the interest is concerned the Division Bench took the view that such liability was a natural corollary of the liability to make payment of compensation and, therefore, it would be covered by the scheme of statutory coverage and consequently the insurance company would be required to make good that claim and reimburse the amount of liability to that extent imposed on the insured employer. The aforesaid decision of the Gujrat High Court has impliedly overruled the contrary view expressed by the learned single judge of that court in Jayantilal and Co. (1992 Acc CJ 286) (supra) so far as the liability of the insurance company to meet the interest claim is concerned. The aforesaid decision of the Gujrat High Court has impliedly overruled the contrary view expressed by the learned single judge of that court in Jayantilal and Co. (1992 Acc CJ 286) (supra) so far as the liability of the insurance company to meet the interest claim is concerned. In the schemes of the Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act as discussed by us earlier the conclusion to which the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujrat reached in Radhabehn’s case (1994 Acc CJ 404)(supra) is the correct conclusion. The said decision of the Division Bench rightly takes the middle course and answers the question for consideration partly in favour of the insurance company so far as the penalty claims are concerned and partly against the insurance company so far as the claims for interest are concerned.” The aforesaid principles are reiterated in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Vs. – Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya, reported in (2006)5 SCC 192 , wherein the relevant portion is at paragraph 24, which reads as under:- “24. Section 17 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act voids only 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 the employment and insofar as it purports to remove or reduce the liability of any person to pay compensation under the Act. As my learned Brother has noticed, in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, there are no provisions corresponding to those in the Motor Vehicles Act, insisting on the insurer covering the entire liability arising out of an award towards compensation to a third party arising out of a motor accident. It is not brought to our notice that there is any other law enacted which stands in the way of an insurance company and the insured entering into a contract confining the obligation of the insurance company to indemnify to a particular head or to a particular amount when it relates to a claim for compensation to a third party arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In this situation, the obligation of the insurance company clearly stands limited and the relevant proviso providing for exclusion of liability for interest or penalty has to be given effect to. In this situation, the obligation of the insurance company clearly stands limited and the relevant proviso providing for exclusion of liability for interest or penalty has to be given effect to. Unlike the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act the Workmen’s Compensation Act does not confer a right on the claimant for compensation under that Act to claim the payment of compensation in its entirety from the insurer himself. The entitlement of the claimant under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is to claim the compensation from the employer. As between the employer and the insurer, the rights and obligations would depend upon the terms of the insurance contract. Construing the contract involved here it is clear that the insurer has specifically excluded any liability for interest or penalty under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and confined its liability to indemnify the employer only against the amount of compensation ordered to be paid under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The High Court was, therefore, not correct in holding that the appellant Insurance Company, is also liable to pay the interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner. The workman has to recover it from the employer.” 7. The Counsel appearing for the appellant has brought to the notice of this Court the aforesaid provision of law and the rulings of this Court and as well as Apex Court which govern the liability of insurance company so far as it pertains to satisfying the quantum of compensation awarded by the Court below and its liability to pay or otherwise the interest and penalty thereon. On perusal of the aforesaid judgments and the policy issued by insurance company in all these appeals it is clearly seen that there is an agreement between the employer of claimants and their insurer regarding contracting out of insurance company’s liability to pay interest by incorporating the following endorsement in the policy: “It is hereby understood and agreed that the cover provided under the Policy shall not extend to indemnify the insured/insured in respect of any interest and/or penalty which may be imposed on him/them on account of his/their failure to comply with the requirements laid down under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and subsequent amendment including No.30 of 1995 w.e.f. 15.9.1995 of the said Act.” 8. In the light of the aforesaid agreement between the parties the liability to pay compensation which arises out of contract is limited only to the extent of quantum but does not include payment of interest as contemplated under Section 4-(A)(3)(a) and (b) of Workmen’s Compensation Act, wherein it is the exclusive liability of the employer. Therefore, this /Court holds that the judgment and order passed by Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act in all these five appeals so far as it pertains to fastening of liability to pay interest amount on the insurance company is not in consonance with either the provision of law or the decision of this Court and as well as Apex Court, referred to supra. Therefore, the judgment and order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act in all the five appeals is required to be modified accordingly. 9. So far as the second substantial question of law regarding the date from which the liability to pay interest arises, it is seen that in all the five orders the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has awarded interest payable on the compensation at 12% from 30th date of the accident till date of realisation. The same is contrary to the ruling of Apex Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., -vs- Mohd. Nasir, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 3717, wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that the liability of the employer/insurance company to pay interest on the award amount would be at 7.5% from the date of petition till date of order and at 12% from the date of order till date of deposit. Therefore, in all the five matters the judgment and order so far as it pertains to payment of interest and the rate of interest is required to be modified to the effect that it is 1st respondent/employer who has to pay interest on the compensation awarded in each of the claim petitions and the interest awarded shall be at 7.5% from the date of petition till date of order and at 12% from the date of order till date of deposit in each of the aforesaid cases. 10. 10. Now coming to third substantial question of law which was specifically framed in M.F.A. No. 5206/2005, it is seen that in the instant case claimant no doubt has suffered injury while discharging his services as cook in the house of manager of 1st respondent/coffee estate. The said injury suffered by him is in the course of his employment. The said injury being injury to his right finger, the finding of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation that he has suffered disability to the whole body at 20% is highly exorbitant and grossly disproportionate to the nature of injury suffered by him. Therefore, the same is required to be modified and the compensation awarded by Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is required to be reassessed as under. 11. Considering the nature of injury being non scheduled injury and the same having not resulted in either amputation of index finger or causing permanent disfigurement resulting in disuse of said finger, the percentage of disability taken at 20% is on higher side and the same is required to be reduced to 5%. Consequently, the compensation awarded at Rs.58,738/- is reduced to Rs.14,684.50/- and the same shall be paid with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till date of order and at 12% p.a., from the date of order till date of deposit. 12. Accordingly, all the five appeals filed by the insurance company are allowed in part. In all the five appeals insurance company is deposited only the award amount. Since the liability of insurance company to pay award amount is upheld in all the cases, the amount in deposit in M.F.A.Nos.5202 to 5206/2005 shall be released in favour of claimant / 1st respondent and the excess amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant/insurance company. It is further observed that 1st respondent/claimant in all the appeals are entitled to receive the revised rate of interest on the compensation awarded from their employer/2nd respondent. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in all the appeals for disbursement.