Judgment Heard. 2. The present Appeal is preferred by the original respondent no.3-insurer aggrieved by the grant of interest as well as penalty on the compensation, granted under section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. V.R. Mundada, submits that though there is no provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act, nor there is any contract between the employer and the insurer that the insurer would be liable to pay interest or penalty, the learned Commissioner had granted interest and directed to pay penalty over the amount of compensation. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2 to 5 i.e. the original claimants submitted that the insurer can be directed to first pay and recover the interest and penalty from the employer. He further submits that the Appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act can be entertained only on substantive question of law and since no substantive question of law is involved in the present case, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of this material, following points arise for my determination:- I) Whether the learned Commissioner has committed patent error in awarding interest and penalty from the appellant? II) Whether the appellant-insurer is liable to pay interest or penalty? My answer to point no.(I) is in the affirmative, to point no.(II) is in the negative. The Appeal is therefore allowed for the reasons to follow: REASONS : 6. Whether the insurer is liable to pay interest and penalty as provided by section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act and whether in absence of any evidence regarding the contract of insurance between the employer and the insurer, the insurer can be directed to pay interest or penalty, is itself a substantive question of law and if the material in this regard on record is not adverted to by the learned Commissioner, the same would be a patent error and, therefore, the Appeal would be maintainable. Point no.(I) is therefore answered accordingly. 7. As to point no.(II) the copy of the policy of insurance placed at exhibit 68 before the learned Tribunal did not show that from the date compensation would be due, the insurer would be liable to pay the compensation absolutely and unconditionally. Point no.(I) is therefore answered accordingly. 7. As to point no.(II) the copy of the policy of insurance placed at exhibit 68 before the learned Tribunal did not show that from the date compensation would be due, the insurer would be liable to pay the compensation absolutely and unconditionally. It is an admitted fact that the primary liability to pay the compensation remains on the employer and the insurer is liable to indemnify the employer in this regard only within the limit of the contract of insurance. 8. Mr. Mundada, learned counsel placed reliance on the ratio of P.J. Narayan Vs. Union of India and others 2004 ACJ 452, wherein the Supreme Court has considered the statutory liability of the insurance company in this regard. Upon considering all the questions, the Supreme Court ultimately held that under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the insurance is a matter of contract between the insurance company and the insured. Even there can be refusal to insure the employer. Thus, the insurance to indemnify the employer/insured for the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, is a voluntary contract between the insured and the insurer and, therefore, in absence of any terms and conditions in the policy of insurance, no liability of payment of interest can be fastened on the insurer. 9. Mr. Mundada, learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the ratio of Ved Prakash Garg V. Premi Devi and others 1998 ACJ 1, wherein the Supreme Court was again dealing with the liability to pay interest on the compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, wherein it was ultimately held that the insurer would not be held liable for payment of the penalty as provided by section 4A(3)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 10. Third of the reliance by Mr. Mundada, learned counsel is on the ratio of the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sohansingh Assasingh and anr. Vs. Jasvantsingh Bisansingh Sohal and anr. 2006 A.C.J. 1125, relying in P.J. Narayan's case (supra). 11. All these authorities and the provisions of section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act show that in case the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act is insured by the insurer, it may or may not be liable for payment of interest and penalty, depending on the terms of contract of insurance. 12. 11. All these authorities and the provisions of section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act show that in case the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act is insured by the insurer, it may or may not be liable for payment of interest and penalty, depending on the terms of contract of insurance. 12. In that view of the matter, the learned Commissioner has wrongly held the present appellant liable to pay interest on the compensation and to pay the penalty. Resultantly, the Appeal is allowed without any order as to costs. Needless to state that the amount deposited with the Commissioner to the extent of interest and penalty, be refunded to the appellant.