JUDGMENT : P.K. Jaiswal, J. This appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'W.C. Act') has been filed by claimants against the order dated 21.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Indore in W.C.F. Case No. 79 of 2006. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law : Whether the claimants are entitled for interest from the date of accident from all the respondents jointly and severally? 2. The material facts of the case are that Manoharsingh (hereinafter called 'the deceased') was working as a driver in tanker bearing registration No. MP 09-KB 8090. The said vehicle belonged to respondent No. 1. On 12.4.2006 the said tanker was loaded with molasses at Borowa for its transportation to Borali Badnawar at Oasis Distillery, Borali. When Manoharsingh, driver of the tanker, reached near Khalghat, he was not feeling well. He suddenly developed chest pain, but he came to Borali and unloaded the tanker at Oasis Distillery. After unloading he parked the tanker near the distillery and was taking rest in the cabin of the tanker. After some time the cleaner came in the cabin of the tanker and saw that driver had died in the cabin. He was immediately taken to S.H.C. Hospital, Badnawar, where the doctor declared him dead. His post-mortem was conducted at S.H.C. Hospital, Badnawar. Undisputedly the accident had occurred while deceased was performing his duties. 3. The appellants herein--the mother, father, daughter and brother (sic widow, 2 sons and daughter)--filed a claim petition under the W.C. Act before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, which was registered as W.C.F. Case No. 79 of 2006. The vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 2. 4. The fact that at the time of his death the deceased Manoharsingh was discharging his duties is not disputed. The autopsy was conducted where cause of death is opined as cardiac arrest No injury on his body was found. The Commissioner after appreciating the material on record came to the conclusion that accident occurred during the course of employment and held that the deceased was a workman and he died during the course of employment and awarded Rs.3,51,080 as compensation. The Commissioner after appreciating the material on record came to the conclusion that accident occurred during the course of employment and held that the deceased was a workman and he died during the course of employment and awarded Rs.3,51,080 as compensation. The Commissioner also awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of accident till its realization and directed the respondent No. 1 to pay the amount of interest within a period of 45 days from the date of order. 5. The respondent No. 2 insurer after admission of the appeal filed the cross-objection on 24.9.2008 on the ground that learned Commissioner without arriving at a finding that the job of the workman involved any stress or strain allowed compensation for his death due to heart attack while on duty. It is submitted that the learned Commissioner erred in allowing compensation without arriving at a finding that job involved any stress or strain. It would contend that only because the cause of death was due to heart attack the same by itself may not be a ground to arrive at a conclusion that an accident had occurred resulting in any injury. In support of the said argument the learned counsel for the insurance company placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Another, (2007) 11 SCC 668 . In the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali (supra) a cleaner while alighting from vehicle suddenly developed chest pain, was taken to hospital where he was declared dead. Autopsy was conducted and doctor opined that cause of death was cardiac arrest due to rupture aortic aneurysm. In absence of pleadings and evidence produced that deceased met with his death by reason of any stress or strain, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there was no evidence of any causal connection between the accident and the injury so as to fulfil the requirements of the term 'out of employment'. Para 40 is relevant which reads as under : (40) A jurisdictional question will involve a substantial question of law. A finding of fact arrived at without there being any evidence would also give rise to a substantial question of law. From the order passed by the Commissioner, it appears that he has not arrived at a finding that the job involved any stress or strain. A finding of fact arrived at without there being any evidence would also give rise to a substantial question of law. From the order passed by the Commissioner, it appears that he has not arrived at a finding that the job involved any stress or strain. It was merely stated that he was working as a khalasi in the truck which was going to Tavarewadi village from Kolhapur to get milk. The autopsy was conducted at Chandgad District Hospital. Driver Parasharam Chandrakant admittedly brought him to hospital. He was his brother. The post-mortem examination commenced from 6.30 a.m. on 28.9.2002 and ended at 7.30 a.m. on the same day. From the post-mortem report, it appears that in the accompanying report, it is stated that the death was due to sudden heart attack. When exactly the death took place is not known. It will bear repetition to state that under what circumstances the death took place is also not known. There was also no pleading in this behalf. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that the death took place during the course of the employment but then no evidence has been brought on record to show that it had a causal connection between accident and serious injury so as to fulfil the requirements of the term 'out of employment'. Indisputably, there has to be a proximate nexus between cause of death and employment. A stray statement made by appellant that deceased had died while working in the vehicle and stress or strain of the work did not appear to have any foundation. Admittedly, she was not present at the spot. She had also no personal knowledge. All these facts she had admitted in the cross-examination. 6. Here in the present case, there was pleading in this behalf in para 1 of the claim petition. The deceased Manoharsingh was working as a driver in a truck which was going to Borali Badnawar village from Borowa to unload molasses. From the evidence it has come on record that on 12.4.2006 the deceased came from Punjab and he stayed for five minutes at his home and thereafter due to pressure of work he again left for Borali for unloading of molasses of Oasis Distillery. Rani Kour, AW 1, wife of the deceased, and Ramesh, cleaner of the vehicle, in their statement have very categorically stated that deceased had gone to Punjab. Rani Kour, AW 1, wife of the deceased, and Ramesh, cleaner of the vehicle, in their statement have very categorically stated that deceased had gone to Punjab. As per autopsy report, the death was due to heart attack. The Commissioner after appreciating the evidence of Rani Kour, appellant No.1, and Ramesh, cleaner, arrived at a finding that heart attack was due to service strain and held that deceased had suffered massive heart attack. The record shows that heart attack was caused while doing his job. The learned Commissioner gave a finding that appellants by cogent evidence have proved that deceased had died while he was working in the vehicle and cardiac arrest has occurred because of stress and strain. 7. The deceased died due to stress and strain during the course of employment. The Commissioner also held that deceased had died in the course of employment. In the judgment of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Another, (2007) 11 SCC 668 , the nature of duty of the deceased was that of the helper and in absence of any pleading and evidence the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that learned Commissioner without arriving at finding that job of workman involved strain and stress erred in allowing compensation for his death due to heart attack while on duty. In the present case, the facts are entirely different and, therefore, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 8. On perusal of the material available on record this court is of the view that the learned Commissioner has not committed any legal error in awarding compensation to the appellants. The finding recorded by the Commissioner is based on application of evidence on record which required no interference. No substantial question of law is involved in the cross-objection filed by the respondent No. 2. Cross-objection has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. 9. Now I will deal with the question whether the insurance company is liable for payment for interest imposed against the employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 10. The issue whether the insurance company is liable for payment of interest on the compensation amount has been discussed recently by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 10. The issue whether the insurance company is liable for payment of interest on the compensation amount has been discussed recently by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya and Another, (2006) 5 SCC 192 . According to their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, unlike the requirement of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, there is no provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act for an employer to take up the insurance policy. The only prohibition contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act is contained in section 17, which deals with a contract or agreement between a workman and employer. According to the said provision, a contract or agreement whereby a workman relinquishes any right to compensation from the employer for personal injury arising out of or in the course of employment shall be null and void insofar as it purports to remove or reduce the liability of any person to pay compensation under this Act. Hence the workman is not permitted to contract out of and to waive the liability of an employer under this Act but the employer and the insurance company are free to contracting terms of the insurance as per their own volition. According to the Apex Court, it is for the insurance company to expressly state its non-liability for the payment of interest payable under Workmen's Compensation Act. Unless such a stipulation is made, the insurance company will be held liable for such payment. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiva (supra), the insurance company had clearly expressed its intention by incorporating the stipulation in the insurance policy for non-payment of interest. Under those circumstances, the Apex Court has held that the insurance company would not be liable. 11. In the case of Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi and others, (1997) 8 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly stated that where the insurance company had insured the employer-owner of the vehicle against the compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, it would be liable for payment of interest upon imposition against the employer. 12. In the present case, learned counsel for the insurance company have not been able to prove that the insurance company had expressly stipulated its non-liability for payment of interest. According to the insurance policy which is on record, there is no such stipulation. 12. In the present case, learned counsel for the insurance company have not been able to prove that the insurance company had expressly stipulated its non-liability for payment of interest. According to the insurance policy which is on record, there is no such stipulation. In the absence of such stipulation, it cannot be said that the insurance company is not liable to pay the interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. 13. The question involved in this appeal is considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi and others, (1997) 8 SCC 1 , and the decision of Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ranidevi and Others, (2009) ACJ 1169, This court is of the view that insurance company would be liable for payment of interest upon imposition against the employer unless and until the insurance company had expressly stipulated its non-liability for the payment of interest. According to insurance policy, there is no such stipulation. In absence of such stipulation, the insurance company is liable to pay the interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. 14. For the above-mentioned reasons, the substantial question of law as framed by this court is decided in favour of the appellants by holding that the insurance company is liable for payment of interest imposed against the employer in a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the amount of interest jointly and severally to the claimants as per direction made by the Commissioner for payment of compensation. No costs.