ORDER 1. This appeal under section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short “W.C. Act”) has been filed on behalf of the Insurer against the order dated 8.12.2001 passed by learned Commissioner under W.C. Act in Case No.48/2001/non-fatal. 2. In brief case of the workman/respondent No.1 is that he was serving and discharging the work of Conductor upon the truck of his owner (respondent No.2) and who was arrayed as non-applicant No.1 before the Commissioner. Further it has been pleaded in the application by the workman Govind Kumar Mishra that a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month was being paid to him by his employer. At the time of accident his age was 20 years. Arising out of and during his course of employment when his duty was on truck No.MP20/G-6901 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”), which is owned by his employer, while covering the Tripal and tightening it on the aforesaid truck, all of a sudden, the rope broke as a result of which, he fell down and sustained fracture on his hip bone. On account of injury sustained by workman, operation was performed and rod, etc. was inserted. According to the workman, the doctor has opined 40% permanent disability and now he is unable to discharge the work of Conductor which he was discharging earlier. Despite his employer respondent No.2 knew the fact that he had sustained injury during the course of his employment, he did not deposit any compensation before the Commissioner under the W.C. Act. 3. It is the further case of workman that the offending vehicle was insured in the office of appellant. 4. In the written statement filed on behalf of employer, the factum of receiving injury arising out of and during the course of employment by the workman has been admitted. Further it has been admitted that he was drawing monthly wages of Rs.4,000/- and his age was 20 years at the time of accident. According to the employer, the offending vehicle was insured with appellant and according to terms of policy, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 5. Further it has been admitted that he was drawing monthly wages of Rs.4,000/- and his age was 20 years at the time of accident. According to the employer, the offending vehicle was insured with appellant and according to terms of policy, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 5. In the written statement filed on behalf of appellant it has been pleaded that liability would remain with employer and cannot be fastened upon the Insurer because the workman was not under the employment of Insurer and therefore unnecessarily the Insurance Company has been arrayed as party and the application to award compensation be dismissed. Further it has been pleaded that necessary documents were not submitted by the workman in regard to employment in the service of respondent No.2 and further the accident had not occurred arising out of and during the course of employment and no notice was given to the respondent No.2 about the alleged accident and therefore liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened upon the Insurance Company. 6. Learned Commissioner framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties came to hold that although doctor has certified that workman has sustained 40% permanent disability since his hip bone has been fractured and it has been operated by inserting rod, etc. but since respondent No.1/workman cannot discharge the work of Conductor, therefore, for him the disability would be 100% and hence by the impugned award, learned Commissioner has directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,37,600/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application. 7. In this manner this appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. 8. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for LRs of workman/respondent that appellant has not deposited the amount of compensation along with interest as awarded by the learned Commissioner under the W.C. Act and has deposited only Rs.5,37,600/-, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable and same be dismissed on this ground only. In support of this contention learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of Full Bench of this Court New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Savita Sen and others [ 2004(2) JLJ 214 (FB)= 2004 ACJ 2134 ], and on a Single Bench decision in Tulsiram s/o Nandram Khati v. Daryaobai w/o Gendalal [ 1998(1) MPLJ 188 ]. 9. In support of this contention learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of Full Bench of this Court New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Savita Sen and others [ 2004(2) JLJ 214 (FB)= 2004 ACJ 2134 ], and on a Single Bench decision in Tulsiram s/o Nandram Khati v. Daryaobai w/o Gendalal [ 1998(1) MPLJ 188 ]. 9. Facing this tight situation Smt. Ruprah, learned counsel for appellant submitted that had appeal been filed by the owner, the matter would have been different and in that case the entire amount of compensation including the interest part should have been deposited under section 30 of the W.C. Act. But, since this appeal has been filed by the Insurer after depositing the principal amount Rs.5,37,600/-, the same is maintainable irrespective of the fact that along with principal sum interest should have been deposited before filing the appeal and therefore this objection should be overruled. 10. During the pendency of this appeal, the workman/respondent had died and respondents No.1(a) to (d) are his heirs. This appeal has not yet been admitted for final hearing although it has been listed for final disposal in motion hearing. The only substantial question of law which is proposed by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal and which has also been canvassed by learned counsel for appellant that since as per doctor’s own evidence the permanent disability of workman was 40% therefore holding the disability 100% by the Commissioner under the W.C. Act runs contrary to section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the W.C. Act and thus the impugned award be modified accordingly. In support of her contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and another [2007 AIR SCW 1265]. 11. On the other hand Shri Chouhan, learned counsel for respondent submits that it has come in the testimony of Dr. B.K. Dang that although 40% of disability has been sustained by the injured, but, now he cannot discharge his duty of Conductor completely and therefore for the workman the said disability is 100%. Hence, it has been prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. This appeal has not yet been admitted for final hearing although it has been ordered that it be heard finally. Hence, it has been prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. This appeal has not yet been admitted for final hearing although it has been ordered that it be heard finally. On bare perusal of section 30 of the W.C. Act, it is gathered that if an appeal is filed against the order of passing the compensation, it should be accompanied by a certificate issued by the Commissioner that the appellant has deposited amount payable under the order and in this regard 3rd proviso to section 30 of the W.C. Act is quite clear. Looking to the wordings of the third proviso “amount payable under the order appealed against” would also include the interest awarded upon the lumpsum, indeed the interest is also a part of award and it is also to be payable to the workman and therefore if an appeal is to be filed against the award of the Commissioner, the same is to be filed after depositing only the against principal amount but also the interest. In the present case order of Commissioner is dated 8.12.2001 and in para 23 of the order it has been mentioned that in case a sum of Rs.5,37,600/- is not deposited within two months from the date of order either by the employer or Insurer, they are liable to pay an interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 9.6.2001. This appeal has been filed by the Insurer on 4.2.2011 and part of the amount of compensation Rs.5,37,600/- was deposited on 25.8.2004 as it appears from the photocopy of the receipt of Commissioner certifying the said deposit by the Insurer/appellant. Thus, admittedly after the lapse of two months the amount has been deposited and therefore in terms of order of Commissioner the interest @ 9% was also to be deposited along with principal sum Rs.5,37,600/-. Since the amount of interest has not been deposited, looking to the bar envisaged in third proviso to section 30 this appeal is not maintainable. I do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that this clause is only applicable to employer and not the Insurer. Indeed, because the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurer/appellant, whatever the liability was fastened upon the employer was also fastened upon the Insurance Company/appellant. I do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that this clause is only applicable to employer and not the Insurer. Indeed, because the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurer/appellant, whatever the liability was fastened upon the employer was also fastened upon the Insurance Company/appellant. The Insurer has also been found liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. In these state of affairs I am of the view that appeal is not mainaintable and is to be dismissed on account of its maintainability. In this regard Full Bench decision of this Court in Savita Sen (supra), placed reliance by the learned counsel for respondent and also Single Bench decision in Tulsiram (supra), are squarely applicable. 14. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, I do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for appellant that since the doctor has given the evidence and proved the certificate saying that the workman sustained only 40% of disability, therefore, holding him 100% permanent disabled is contrary to law. On minutely going through the statement of doctor it is gathered that although he has stated that there is a disability of 40% on account of the fracture of the hip bone, but, now the workman is totally unable to discharge the work of Conductor and therefore according to me for the workman the permanent disability is 100% since he cannot now discharge the work of Conductor. 15. The evidence of workman Govind Kumar Mishra is also relevant who has categorically stated that on account of sustaining fracture on the right side of his hip bone, he was operated and a rod has also been inserted and now he cannot discharge the duty of the Conductor. Learned Commissioner after marshalling the evidence of workman and the doctor examined by him vis-a-vis to the testimony of evidence of Insurance Company, gave a pure finding of fact that workman has sustained permanent disability of 100%. The decision of Supreme Court in Mubasir Ahmed (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant is not applicable because in that case no reasons were assigned by the High Court holding that the workman has sustained disability of 40% although the reasons were assigned by the Commissioner and therefore the order of Commissioner was restored. The decision of Supreme Court in Mubasir Ahmed (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant is not applicable because in that case no reasons were assigned by the High Court holding that the workman has sustained disability of 40% although the reasons were assigned by the Commissioner and therefore the order of Commissioner was restored. Apart from this in that case there was no evidence of the workman that he is totally unable to discharge the work which he was doing earlier and there is no finding of Commissioner that workman is totally unable to discharge the work which he was doing earlier before the accident. But, in the present case there is evidence of the workman/respondent that now he is totally unable to discharge the work which he was doing earlier to the accident and there is a positive finding of Commissioner in that regard. In the present case since the Commissioner has marshaled and considered the evidence of the parties vis-a-vis to each other and on the basis of evidence came on record has given a categorical finding that workman sustained 100% disability, therefore, this decision is distinguishable on the facts. 16. Resultantly, this appeal fails on its maintainability as well as on merits and the same is here by dismissed. No costs.