JUDGMENT Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Appeal is filed against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Hassan Sub-Dvn., Hassan on 29.7.2011 in No. SR 37/2010. There is a delay of 293 days in preferring the appeal. After hearing, the delay is condoned. 2. The insurer has appealed on the ground of non-payment of premium towards coolie contending that as per IMT 39 of the Policy, there is no premium paid to cover a coolie as such, the insurer is not liable. 3. It appears claimants are the parents and siblings of the deceased. On 7.8.2010 as per the direction of the respondent owner, the deceased was loading bricks from the Bricks Factory belonging to the owner. Around 2.00 p.m. while the deceased was on the lorry loading bricks, without giving any caution, the driver of the lorry moved the vehicle suddenly. The deceased Pradeep Kumar having come in contact with a electric wire, fell down due to electric shock and sustained grievous injuries. On the way to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was aged 25 years at the time of accident and was being paid Rs. 250/- coolie per day, Rs. 7,500/- salary per month. Stating that the deceased sustained accident injuries and succumbed to the same in the course of employment, claim petition was filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hassan Division. On the matter being contested, while entertaining the application, the Commissioner has passed an award for Rs. 4,88,048/- with interest at 7.5% on the award amount and thereafter, at 12% till deposit. On the point of liability, the insurer is in appeal on the ground that separate premium has not been paid so as to cover the Loader. 4. It is seen, the policy obtained by the owner is a comprehensive policy which is valid as on the date of accident. Looking into the details provided in the policy, it is seen nearly Rs. 18,851/- has been paid towards final premium. All the columns provided have been considered and it is a package premium. Though it is a package premium, a frivolous contention has been raised by the insurer contending that separate premium has not been paid so as to include a Loader. It is very strange that to avoid timely payment/liability, such frivolous contentions are taken now and then. All the columns provided have been considered and it is a package premium. Though it is a package premium, a frivolous contention has been raised by the insurer contending that separate premium has not been paid so as to include a Loader. It is very strange that to avoid timely payment/liability, such frivolous contentions are taken now and then. When the policy itself is a package policy, IMT 39 would not apply to the case on hand. Further, what is the premium amount is also not mentioned except reading the provision under IMT 39. Of course, IMT 39 provides for premium to be collected at the rate of Rs. 25/- towards personal injury to any paid driver or cleaner or conductor or person employed in loading or unloading. The policy provides for a basic liability premium for Rs. 5,920/- and parallel PA cover to owner driver at Rs. 100/-, LLP paid drivers at Rs. 25/- per person. Apart from that, package premium is also charged at Rs. 1,709/-. When package premium in a sum of Rs. 17,091/- has been paid, this package includes the additional premium of Rs. 25/- per person for loaders, etc., the contention that under IMT 39 separate premium has to be paid is not tenable. Apart from that, when the insured has paid Rs. 18.851/- towards all liability, there is no question of saying that additional premium of Rs. 25/- is not paid for each coolie. The tenor of contention raised by the insurer is even without enlightening the insured explaining the situation. Also when the vehicle itself is a goods vehicle, this contention would not support the view of the insurer. Appeal filed by the insurer on the point of liability itself has to be negated while upholding the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. 5. Further, while awarding compensation, the Commissioner has not taken into consideration the statutory liability regarding payment of interest. As per settled position of law, claimants are entitled for interest from one month after the date of accident till deposit in stead of from the date of order till deposit. Appeal is dismissed. While modifying the award passed by the Commissioner, it is ordered claimants are entitled for interest at 12% from one month after the date of accident till deposit. Amount deposited be transferred to the Commissioner for disbursement in favour of the claimants. Appeal is dismissed. While modifying the award passed by the Commissioner, it is ordered claimants are entitled for interest at 12% from one month after the date of accident till deposit. Amount deposited be transferred to the Commissioner for disbursement in favour of the claimants. Additional interest amount if any, in view of the modification of the order, be deposited by the insurer in three months.