JUDGMENT : This order shall also govern the disposal of M. A. No. 1153/2010; 1159/2010 and 1161/2010 along with above appeal, as all of them arise from the common Award of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. They involve common facts and question of law therefore we may briefly state the facts necessary for disposal of all appeals. 2. On 14-3-2006, two persons, viz. Mahendra and Sukhlal died in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. They were employed as Khalasi on the truck belonging Manjeetsingh. On the fateful day the truck was insured with respondent No. 4. According to claim petitions, deceased were young men getting wages of Rs. 100/- per day. 3. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation adjudicated upon their claim and awarded a Sum of Rs. 3,34,065/- as compensation for death of Mahendra and Rs. 3,36,000/- for death of Sukhlal. Learned Commissioner considering the Insurance Policy found that the aforesaid amount of compensation would be recoverable from the owner and Insurance Company jointly and severally. In addition to compensation, learned Commissioner also directed the employer (Manjeetsingh) to pay on the computed amount 12% simple interest from the date of accident and also 50% penalty within one month under section 4A of the Act. Claimants and employer both are aggrieved only by this part of the direction, hence these four appeals : two by claimants and two by employer. 4. There is no factual controversy in these appeals. Consequently, there is no difficulty in affirming the findings of the Commissioner for Workmen that on the fateful day Mahendra and Sukhlal both met with in an accident arising out of and died in the course of their employment while working on truck belonging to appellant Manjeetsingh. The Truck was insured with respondent No. 4 and the "Insurance Policy" had covered the statutory risk of two workmen. Learned Commissioner for Workmen computed the amount of compensation and directed the same would be recoverable jointly and severally from the owner and insurance company of the truck. Learned Commissioner also found that provision of section 4A were attracted to the facts of the case, therefore, directed appellant (owner of the Truck) alone to pay 12% simple interest from the date accident and also to pay 50% penalty within a month. Learned Commissioner also found that provision of section 4A were attracted to the facts of the case, therefore, directed appellant (owner of the Truck) alone to pay 12% simple interest from the date accident and also to pay 50% penalty within a month. Owner of the vehicle as well claimant want the burden to comply with this direction should also be thrown on the shoulders of the Insurance Company. This is vehemently opposed by the Insurance Company and it was submitted that Insurance Company was not liable to any further amount. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the question that arises for our consideration is "Where an employee dies in a motor accident arising out of and in the course of his employment while working on the motor vehicle of the employer, whether the insurance company is liable to meet the awards of Workmen's Commissioner imposing penalty and interest against the insured employer under section 4A(3) of the Compensation Act?" 6. During the course of their respective submissions, learned counsel took us through the entire record. Learned counsel for employer and claimants in unison submitted that Commissioner for Workmen Compensation committed illegality in holding that Insurance Company was not liable to pay interest and penalty under section 4A of the Act. On other hand learned counsel for Insurance Company while supporting the Order of the Commissioner submitted that there is no substance in appeals and they deserve to be dismissed. 7. Before we embark upon this enquiry, it will be necessary to keep in view the relevant statutory schemes in the light of which this controversy has to be resolved. The Compensation Act deals with the provisions for payment by certain classes of employers to their workmen of compensation for employment injuries caused by accident. There is no dispute between the parties that the deceased in these cases were workmen employed by the appellant-employer. Section 3 of the Compensation Act deals with 'Employer's liability for compensation'. Subsection (1) thereof lays down that 'if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II'. Section 3 of the Compensation Act deals with 'Employer's liability for compensation'. Subsection (1) thereof lays down that 'if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II'. It is also not in dispute that fatal injuries were caused to the workmen by accidents which arose out of and in the course of their employment because of which they were working on the motor vehicles of the appellant-employers when they met their ends on account of motor accidents. Section 4 of the Compensation Act deals with 'Account of compensation'. It lays down the statutory scheme for computing the compensation payable in cases of the types of accidental injuries suffered by the workmen concerned. The employer, on a conjoint reading of sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the Compensation Act, would be liable to make good the liability for paying compensation to the insured workmen under circumstances contemplated by these provisions. Then follows section 4A of the Compensation Act with which we are directly concerned. 8. A mere look at the aforesaid provision shows that section 4A deals with the time for payment of compensation. Sub-section (1) thereof mandates that compensation shall be paid as soon as it falls due. Sub-section (2) thereof contemplates a situation wherein the employer though accepting his liability to pay compensation to his injured workman disputes the extent of the claim of compensation and in such a case sub-section (2) enjoins upon him to make provisional payment based on the extent of accepted liability by depositing it with the Commissioner in case of fatal injury or to pay it directly to the workman in case of personal injury. It is obvious that such an obligation of the employer would not arise under section 4A, sub-section (2) if he totally disputes his liability to pay on grounds like the injured person being not his employee or that the accident was caused to him at a time when he was not in the course of employment or that the accident caused to him did not arise out of his employment. If such disputes are raised by the employer then his obligation to make provisional payment under sub-section (2) of section 4A would not arise and his liability would depend upon the final adjudication by the Workmen's Commissioner at the end of the trial. In that light when sub-section (3) of section 4A is seen, it becomes obvious that once the compensation due under the Act becomes ascertained either provisionally under sub-section (2) or finally on adjudication by the Commissioner and if the employer does not pay the same within one month from the date it thus falls due, the Commissioner can direct under sub-clause (a) of section 4A(3) interest at the rate provided therein and also penalty as contemplated by sub-clause (b) thereof as per section 4A(3) of the Compensation Act. Thus even in the scheme of section 4A(3) read with clauses (a) and (b) thereof, it becomes clear that additional amount of compensation can be levied against the defaulting employer by way of penalty if it is shown that there is no justification for the delay on his part in making good the compensation amount to the claimant. Interest payable on the principal amount, if not paid when it fell due, is not considered by the Legislature to be a penalty. A simpliciter default in payment of compensation within the time of one month from the date it fell due would automatically attract the provision for simple interest under section 4A(3) as per the rate prescribed therein and for such imposition of interest no question of justification for the delay is countenanced by the Legislature. But while imposing penalty justification for delay would be a good defence for the employer for meeting such claim for penalty. 9. Section 19 of the Compensation Act also deserves to be noted at this stage. Sub-section (1) thereof lays down that 'if any question arises in any proceedings under this Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation were working on the motor vehicles of the appellant-employers when they met their ends on account of motor accidents. Section 4 of the Compensation Act deals with 'Account of compensation'. It lays down the statutory scheme for computing the compensation payable in cases of the types of accidental injuries suffered by the workmen concerned. Section 4 of the Compensation Act deals with 'Account of compensation'. It lays down the statutory scheme for computing the compensation payable in cases of the types of accidental injuries suffered by the workmen concerned. The employer, on a conjoint reading of sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the Compensation Act, would be liable to make good the liability for paying compensation to the insured workmen under circumstances contemplated by these provisions. Then follows section 4A of the Compensation Act with which we are directly concerned. 8. A mere look at the aforesaid provision shows that section 4A deals with the time for payment of compensation. Sub-section (1) thereof mandates that compensation shall be paid as soon as it falls due. Sub-section (2) thereof contemplates a situation wherein the employer though accepting his liability to pay compensation to his injured workman disputes the extent of the claim of compensation and in such a case sub-section (2) enjoins upon him to make provisional payment based on the extent of accepted liability by depositing it with the Commissioner in case of fatal injury or to pay it directly to the workman in case of personal injury. It is obvious that such an obligation of the employer would not arise under section 4A, sub-section (2) if he totally disputes his liability to pay on grounds like the injured person being not his employee or that the accident was caused to him at a time when he was not in the course of employment or that the accident caused to him did not arise out of his employment. If such disputes are raised by the employer then his obligation to make provisional payment under sub-section (2) of section 4A would not arise and his liability would depend upon the final adjudication by the Workmen's Commissioner at the end of the trial. In that light when sub-section (3) of section 4A is seen, it becomes obvious that once the compensation due under the Act becomes ascertained either provisionally under sub-section (2) or finally on adjudication by the Commissioner and if the employer does not pay the same within one month from the date it thus falls due, the Commissioner can direct under sub-clause (a) of section 4A(3) interest at the rate provided therein and also penalty as contemplated by sub-clause (b) thereof as per section 4A(3) of the Compensation Act. Thus even in the scheme of section 4A(3) read with clauses (a) and (b) thereof, it becomes clear that additional amount of compensation can be levied against the defaulting employer by way of penalty if it is shown that there is no justification for the delay on his part in making good the compensation amount to the claimant. Interest payable on the principal amount, if not paid when it fell due, is not considered by the Legislature to be a penalty. A simpliciter default in payment of compensation within the time of one month from the date it fell due would automatically attract the provision for simple interest under section 4A(3) as per the rate prescribed therein and for such imposition of interest no question of justification for the delay is countenanced by the Legislature. But while imposing penalty justification for delay would be a good defence for the employer for meeting such claim for penalty. 9. Section 19 of the Compensation Act also deserves to be noted at this stage. Sub-section (1) thereof lays down that 'if any question arises in any proceedings under this Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation (including any question as to whether a person injured is or is not a workman) or as to the amount or duration of compensation (including any question as to the nature or extent of disablement), the question shall, in default of agreement, be settled by a Commissioner'. Sub-section (2) of section 19 bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, or dealt with by a Commissioner, or to enforce any liability incurred under this Act. As per the aforesaid provisions any dispute between the employer-insured on the one hand and the insurance company, (that is said to have; insured the employer against such claims for compensation under the Compensation Act), on the other has to be resolved in default of agreement between them by the Commissioner functioning under the Compensation Act and not by any Civil Court. It may be mentioned at this stage that learned counsel for the contesting respondent-insurance companies made it clear before us that it is not their contention that the insurance companies which have insured the employers against such risks and claims are not liable to make good the principal amounts of compensation as awarded by the Commissioner to the claimants and that the insurance companies under the contracts of insurance would remain liable to make good the said claims. But their only grievance is against the pliability sought to be enforced against them for reimbursing the claims for additional compensation by way of penalty and interest as imposed on the insured employers under section 4A (3) of the Compensation Act. 10. Now when we consider the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, we find that section 146 lays down the necessity for insurance against third party risk and provides that 'no person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter'. Section 147 deals with 'Requirements of policies and limits of liability'. Sub-clause (b) of section 147(1) read with the proviso lays down a statutory scheme of compulsory coverage of liability incurred by the employer vis-a-vis his employees when they met with death or sustain injuries by the use of motor vehicles during their employment and on account of motor accidents arising out of and in the course of their employment. But the statutory coverage for such liability would be limited to the extent of liability of the insured employer arising under the workmen's Compensation Act in respect of death or bodily injury to such employees. As the motor accidents resulted in fatal injuries to the employees whatever liability was incurred by insured in connection with proceedings arising out of the Compensation Act was covered by the statutory liability of the respondent-insurance companies. The very same result would follow when we turn to the relevant clause of the insurance policies to which our attention was invited by learned counsel for the appellants. The very same result would follow when we turn to the relevant clause of the insurance policies to which our attention was invited by learned counsel for the appellants. A conjoint reading of these provisions in the Insurance Policy shows that it is compulsory for the insurance company to insure the employer-owner of the motor vehicles against all liabilities arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act for which statutory coverage is required under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act noted earlier. Section 149 deals with Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured. If it is so, then the insurance coverage as available to the insured amount as well as the interest payable thereon would remain part and parcel of the legal liability of the insured to be discharged under the Compensation Act and not de hors it. It, therefore, cannot be said by the insurance company that when it is statutorily and even contractually liable to reimburse the employer qua his statutory liability to pay compensation to the claimants in case of such motor accidents to his workmen, the interest on the principal amount which almost automatically gets foisted upon him once the compensation amount is not paid within one month from the date it fell due, would not be a part of the insured liability of the employer. No question of justification by the insured employer for the delay in such circumstances would arise for consideration. It is of course true that one month's period as contemplated under section 4A(3) may start running for the purpose of attracting interest under sub-clause (a) thereof in case where provisional payment has to be made by the insured employer as per section 4A(2 of the Compensation Act from the date such provisional payment becomes due But when the employer does not accept his liability as a whole under circumstances enumerated by us earlier then section 4A(2) would not gel attracted and one month's period would start running from the date on which due compensation payable by the employer is adjudicated upon by the Commissioner and in either case the Commissioner would be justified in directing payment of interest in such contingencies only from the date of the award and not from the date of the accident concerned. Such an order passed by the Commissioner would remain perfectly justified on the scheme of section 4A(3)(a) of the Compensation Act. Such an order passed by the Commissioner would remain perfectly justified on the scheme of section 4A(3)(a) of the Compensation Act. In view of the foregoing discussion, the direction of the Commissioner that employer would pay simple interest @12% per annum from the date of the accident on the computed amount cannot be sustained. It deserves to be modified. Accordingly we direct that if computed amount, is paid within one month from the date of award of the Commissioner for workmen, it shall carry simple interest @12% payable jointly and severally by the employer and the insurance company. 12. Now coming to the question of penalty, the point is no longer res-Integra. The question has been settled by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. It is held that where additional amount is added to the principal amount of compensation by way of penalty to be levied on the employer under circumstances contemplated by section 4A(3)(b) of the Compensation Act. When the Commissioner for Workmen while adjudicating the claim finds that because of unjustified delay on the part of employer, the victim did not get the compensation when it fell due, and then the penalty would get imposed on him. It is clear that penalty is not automatic to the liability incurred by the insured employer under the Compensation Act. To that extent such penalty amount as imposed upon the insured employer would get out of the sweep of the terra liability incurred by the insured employer as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act. This was the interpretation put by their Lordship of the Supreme Court on the two statutory schemes found under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act and Motor Vehicles Act. In the words of their Lordships' "the conclusion becomes inevitable that when an employee suffers from a motor accident injury while on duty on the motor vehicle belonging to the insured employer, the claim for compensation payable under the Compensation Act along with interest thereon, if any, as imposed by the Commissioner sections 3 and 4A(3)(a) of the Compensation Act will have to be made good by the insurance company jointly with the insured employer. But so far as the amount of penalty imposed on the insured employer under contingencies contemplated by section 4A(3)(b) is concerned as that is on account of personal fault of the insured not backed up by any justifiable cause, the insurance company cannot be made liable to reimburse that part of the penalty amount imposed on the employer. The latter because of his own fault and negligence will have to bear the entire burden of the said penalty amount with proportionate interest thereon if imposed by the Workmen's Commissioner." 13. In view of the foregoing discussion appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be retained in the file of M. A. Nos. 1153/2010 (Manjeetsingh vs. Shobharam and others); 1159/2010 (Udaysingh and others vs. Manjeetsingh and another); 1161/2010 (Shobharam and another vs. Manjeetsingh and another). Appeal partly allowed.