1. Late Ghulam Qadir Janjua, Mohi-ud-din Janjua, Mohammad Safeer Janjua and Fayaz Ahmad Ganjoo, while in the employment of respondents No.5-M/S Jagdish Chand Gupta, Engineers & Contractors, who was engaged as contractor by respondent No. 6 (Principle employer), while working on a bridge at Parampilla Uri, lost their lives on 15.11.2008 when the bridge collapsed. The deceased workmen were receiving Rs.6000/each as their monthly wages from respondent No.5. When compensation was not paid in accordance with Workman's Compensation Act, 1923, the dependents of the deceased filed four separate claim petitions/before the Authority under Workmen's Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner) Baramulla. The wages and age of the deceased workmen have been assessed as under:- S.No. Name of the Deceased Age at the time of accident Monthly wages 1. Mom-ud-Din Janjua 35 years 3200-00 2. Ghulam Qadir Janjua 36 years 3200-00 3. Mohammad Safeer Janjua 20 years 3200-00 4. Fayaz Ahnmd Jangoo 22 years 3200-00 2. The amount of compensation, interest and penalty @50% has been calculated as under: S.NO. Name of the petitioner Amount of compensation Penalty @50% Interest @12% Total 1. Rasheeda Begum 3,15,296-00 1,57,648-00 75,672-00 5,48,616-00 2. Zareena Begum 3,11,424-00 1,55,712-00 74,742-00 5,41,878-66 3. Khurshid Ahmad 3,58,400-00 1,79,200-00 86,016-00 6,23,616-00 4. Nazir Hussain Jangoo 3,54,192-00 1,77,096-00 85,006-00 6,16,294-00 3. Finally an amount of Rs.13,39,312 (Rupees thirteen lac thirty nine thousand three hundred twelve) has been awarded, with interest of Rs.3,21,436(Rupees three, lac twenty one thousand four hundred thirty six), payable to the petitioners (claimants) with direction to appellant insurance company to deposit the said amount within thirty days for its disbursement to the dependents of deceased workmen. It has also been ordered that the contractor (respondent No.5) was under legal obligation to deposit the amount within thirty days of the date of accidental death, which has not been done, therefore, claimants shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 6,96,656 (Rupees six lac ninety six thousand six hundred (fifty six) as penalty @ 50% of the compensation amount as per- Section 4(A) of the Workmen's Compensation. Act, 1923. The respondent No.6 (General Manager, Uri-II Hydro Electric Project) has been directed to deposit the amount out of the bills/deposits of the respondent No.5 within 30 days, 4. 6,96,656 (Rupees six lac ninety six thousand six hundred (fifty six) as penalty @ 50% of the compensation amount as per- Section 4(A) of the Workmen's Compensation. Act, 1923. The respondent No.6 (General Manager, Uri-II Hydro Electric Project) has been directed to deposit the amount out of the bills/deposits of the respondent No.5 within 30 days, 4. Learned counsel for the appellant (Insurance Company) firstly tried to project that the amount payable has fallen due on the date of award i.e. 22.02.2011 so the amount was to be deposited, within thirty days reckoning from 22.2.2011. The amount of interest has been calculated and granted from the date of accident (death), penalty has been imposed when same was not due because there was no default as the amount has been deposited within thirty days from the date of award. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 projected that the words "it falls due" as occur in Section 4A of the Act has been interpreted to mean to "fall due" from the date of death. 6. The submission made is not tenable. The controversy has already been set at rest in various judgments. In this regard, the latest judgment has been rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George & ors, reported in 2012 STPL(Web)404 SC. Para 2 of the judgment reads as under: "2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is when does the payment of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter the Act) become due and consequently what is the point in time from which interest would be payable on the amount of compensation as provided under Section 4-A (3) of the Act", 7. In the said judgment, it has been held, that "it is not open to contend that the payment of compensation would fall due only after the Commissioner's order or with reference to the date on which the claim application is made". 8. In the judgment delivered by four Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been held that "an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workmen by the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. 8. In the judgment delivered by four Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been held that "an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workmen by the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. Thus, the relevant date for determination of the rate of compensation is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim" learned counsel for the appellant while confronted, with the same, was fair enough to state that the legal position vis-a-vis "due date", in view of authoritative judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court, is the date of accident. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that in terms of the insurance contract, the appellant company, is not liable to pay the amount of interest and penalty. 10. It shall be quite relevant to quote the Proviso (i) of the insurance contract: "Provided that the insurance granted hereunder is not extended to include: (i) Any interest and/or penalty imposed of the insured on account of his/her failure to comply with the requirements laid down under the W. C. Act, 1923". 11. The said Proviso (i) provides that in case there is any failure on the part of the insured in complying with the requirements laid down in W. C. Act 1923, then the insurance company shall not be liable. 12. Now the question, which again arises for consideration, is as to whether there is any default on the part of the insured (respondent No. 5). 13. As per Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the employer is required to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts and the payment has to be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the workman, as the case maybe, without prejudice to the right of the Workman to make any further claim. Sub-section (3) of Section 4A, provides that where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, direct payment of simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent per annum. Sub-section (3) of Section 4A, provides that where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, direct payment of simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent per annum. In addition, in terms of Section 4A(3)(b), Commissioner shall direct that the employer shall be liable to pay 50% of the amount of compensation by way of penalty, If there is no justification for the delay in deposit of the amount. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant would project that it was for the employer (respondent No. 5) to immediately deposit the provisional amount of compensation within 30 days from the date of accident which he has not, therefore, his default in not making the payment of compensation, within 30 days from the date of accident and the consequent delay in making the payment has attracted the imposition of penalty which is solely to be borne by the employer because the exclusion clause, as contained in the insurance contract, excludes the responsibility of the insurer from paying the amount of interest and penalty in view of default of the employer. Supporting this contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya & anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC1926. It shall be quite relevant to quote following portion from para 23 of the judgment: "....Unless one is in a position to void and exclusion clause concerning liability for interest and penalty imposed on the insured on account of his failure to comply with the requirements of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the insurer cannot be made liable to the insured for those amounts". 15. Again it shall be relevant to quote following portion from para 24 of the reported judgment: "..........Construing the contract involved here it is clear that the insurer has specifically excluded any liability for interest or penalty under the Workmen's Compensation Act and confined its liability to indemnify the employer only against the amount of compensation ordered to be paid under the Workmen's Compensation act. The High Court was, therefore, not correct in holding that the appellant-insurance company, is also liable to pay the interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner. The Workman has to recover it from the employer". 16. The High Court was, therefore, not correct in holding that the appellant-insurance company, is also liable to pay the interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner. The Workman has to recover it from the employer". 16. In the reported judgment the same proviso as referred to above was incorporated in the insurance contract, based on same, the insurance company has been held not to be liable to pay the amount of interest and penalty, Applying the ratio of the judgment to the present case, which is almost identical on the issue of exclusion clause, the insurance company appellant shall not be liable to pay the amount of interest and the penalty. The amount of interest and penalty, as such, shall be payable by the employer (respondent No. 5). To that extent award shall stand modified, 17. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that an amount of Rs.2,00,000(Rupees two lac) has been paid in each case to the claimants by the principal employer (respondent No.6) but in opposition it was stated that the said amount has been paid to the next of kin of the victim by way of ex-gratia relief In support thereof communication dated 24,8.2009 has been produced, same is taken on record. The amount of ex-gratia paid shall not, in any manner, be included in the amount of compensation as has been awarded to the dependents of the deceased. 18. The amount of the award has been deposited, portion of the same has been released in favour of claimants and the remaining amount shall be paid to them according to their entitlement by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, where the amount is deposited. Right is reserved to the appellant to initiate proceedings for recovery of the amount of interest and penalty from the employer (respondent No. 5) 19. All these appeals accordingly are disposed of as above.