JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:- All these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of two identical awards of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. It appears that no substantial question of law was framed while admitting the appeals. An appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 lies to the High Court only when a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Findings of fact delivered by the Commissioner are final and cannot be set aside in appeal unless there is gross misreading of evidence or the Commissioner has reached a conclusion which no prudent man could arrive at. In the present case, the allegation of the claimants was that the deceased were employed as labourers in the truck in question and they were killed by extremists during the course of performing their duties and hence they were entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 2. The respondent owner of the truck took up the plea that the deceased were not his workers and they were the workers of some ration shop dealers whose goods were being transported in his truck. The learned Commissioner held that the deceased died during the course of the employment. He also held that both the deceased were earning Rs. 100/- per day and taking this to be the income assessed the compensation. The owner of the truck was found to be the employer of the deceased employees and compensation was awarded. The insurance company was held liable to pay the principal amount of compensation but the owner was held liable to pay the interest. 3. The insurance company has not challenged the award. Two appeals have been filed by the owner in which the owner has raised the plea that the deceased were not his employees and were the employees of the ration shop dealers. Two appeals have been filed by the claimants claiming enhancement of compensation on the ground that the income has wrongly been assessed by the learned Commissioner. The claimants have also claimed that due to the false stand taken by the owner he should be burdened with the liability to pay 50% penalty. 4. As far as the appeals of the owner of the truck are concerned, it would be pertinent to mention that the owner has stepped into the witness box and denied that the deceased were his employees. 4. As far as the appeals of the owner of the truck are concerned, it would be pertinent to mention that the owner has stepped into the witness box and denied that the deceased were his employees. According to him, the deceased were the employees of some ration shop dealers. However, he did not give the names of the ration shop dealers nor any details as to where the deceased persons were employed. Admittedly, the deceased were travelling or at least loading/unloading goods from the truck owned by the appellant. He had to come out with some better plea in his statement. If he denied that the deceased were not his employees he should have at least indicated whose employees they were. 5. Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel for the appellant-owner, has drawn my attention to the FIR in which the names of some ration shop dealers are mentioned. An FIR cannot become a piece of evidence by itself. Even if it is admitted in evidence the contents of the FIR will have to be proved. The owner of the truck was the best person to say who were his employees. If he was denying the employment of the deceased and was taking up a specific defence that the deceased were the employees of the some other persons, he should have named those persons and should have also summoned those persons to give evidence to prove the fact that the deceased were the employees of that person. 6. The finding that the deceased were employees of the owner is a pure finding of fact. The finding is based on evidence and it cannot said to be a case of no evidence or total misreading of evidence. Therefore, I find no substantial question of law in the appeals raised by the owner and both the appeals in regard to this aspect are without any merit. 7. However, I find that the owner has wrongly been fastened with the liability to pay the interest. In my view, the insurance company cannot escape its liability to pay interest. The compensation becomes due on the date of the accident itself and must be paid within one month of the accident. Reference in this behalf may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Siby George & Ors., 2012 AIR SCW 4384. The compensation becomes due on the date of the accident itself and must be paid within one month of the accident. Reference in this behalf may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Siby George & Ors., 2012 AIR SCW 4384. Reliance placed on the judgment of P.J. Narayan vs. Union of India and others 2004 ACJ 452 is totally misconceived. Infact, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya and another in (2006) 5 SCC 192 , the Apex Court dealing with this issue, held as follows: By reason of the provisions of the Act, an employer is not statutorily liable to enter into a contract of insurance. Where, however, a contract of insurance is entered into by and between the employer and the insurer, the insurer shall be liable to indemnify the employer. The insurer, however, unlike under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act does not have a statutory liability. The Act does not contain a provision like Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 17 of the Act does not provide for any restriction in the matter of contracting out by the employer vis-à-vis the insurer. The terms of a contract of insurance would depend upon the volition of the parties. A contract of insurance is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act. In terms of the provisions of the Insurance Act, an insured is bound to pay premium which is to be calculated in the manner provided for therein. With a view to minimize his liability, an employer can contract out so as to make the insurer not liable as regards indemnifying him in relation to certain matters which do not strictly arise out of the mandatory provisions of any statute. Contracting out, as regards payment of interest by an employer, therefore, is not prohibited in law. 8. No doubt an insurance company can enter into contract whereby it is not liable to pay the interest. If the insurance company wants to escape its liability to pay the interest, it must produce and prove the insurance policy and show that there is a clause therein that the insurance company is not liable to pay interest. In case, the insurance company does not discharge the onus which lies upon it, it must be held liable to pay the interest. 9. In case, the insurance company does not discharge the onus which lies upon it, it must be held liable to pay the interest. 9. Coming to the appeal of the claimants, Mr. S.K. Datta learned counsel argued that even in the year 2004 the wages of a workman would not be less than Rs. 150/- per day and could not have been taken at Rs. 100/- per day. Unfortunately, there is no evidence with regard to the prevalent wages at that time. The claimants claimed that the deceased were getting Rs. 4,500/- per month and were also getting 'tiffin allowance'. However when the employer stepped into the witness box no suggestion was put to the employer as to the extent of wages or the 'tiffin allowance' being paid. Again, the Commissioner had no other option but to decide this issue on the scanty evidence led by both the parties. This finding is also a pure finding of fact. Even otherwise assuming for the sake of argument that a labourer would earn Rs. 150/- a day this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that no labourer can get employment 365 days in a year. A labourer also falls ill, has to visit his native place et. when this income may not be there. The amount of Rs. 3,000/- assessed as monthly income appears to me to be reasonable and, therefore, calls for no interference. 10. With regard to the issue of penalty there is merit in the plea of Mr. Dutta that this is a case where the owner should be burdened with the liability to pay some penalty at least. Here is an employer who instead of helping his employees goes to the extent of denying the employment. Even the conduct of the employer before the trial Court has not been very good and matters have been delayed by the employer on one pretext or the other. Therefore, I am of the considered view that some penalty should be levied on the employer. The maximum penalty provided for is 50% but keeping in view the facts of the case I feel that the interest of the justice would be served if the owner is held liable to pay penalty of 10% of the principal awarded amount in each case. 11. The maximum penalty provided for is 50% but keeping in view the facts of the case I feel that the interest of the justice would be served if the owner is held liable to pay penalty of 10% of the principal awarded amount in each case. 11. The insurance company shall deposit the interest and the owner shall deposit the penalty within a period of 3(three) months from today failing which the claimants can take action to recover the amount. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Send down the LCRs forthwith.