JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law, on 12.6.2007: “Whether the award of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is in accordance with provisions of Section 4-A (3) (a)(b) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 when it does not award interest and penalty on the established facts on the record?” 2. Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has only argued on the basis of substantial questions of law framed that the interest was payable from the date of accident and not from the date of Award. 3. Learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) in Rani Kour and others vs. Jagtar Singh and another, 2012 ACJ 2072 has held that where insurance company has not expressly stipulated nonliability for payment of interest in the policy, it is liable to pay the interest on the amount of compensation. Learned Single Judge has held as under: “[14] Learned Advocate Mr. Sandip Shah appearing for respondent No. 1-original plaintiff in all the appeals referred to the documentary evidences as well as the pleadings in detail and submitted that the operations were performed on the left eye by defendant No. 3 and thereafter the operation was performed for removal of the left eye-ball by defendant No. 5 and again for cataract in the right eye the operation was performed by defendant No. 5. He submitted that if the chronology of events and the dates are considered, it is evident that there was sepsis in his left eye when the operation was performed. He submitted that with the same condition the operation could not have been performed. The submission with regard to endogenous infection in some other part of the body is misconceived as the pathological reports clearly state that the plaintiff was normal. He submitted that, thus, at the time of treating the patient when there was an injury and the blood had clotted, both defendant Nos. 3 and 4 tried to hush up, played mischief keeping the respondent-plaintiff in the dark which led to deterioration in not only the left eye but also affected his right eye. Learned Advocate Mr. Sandip Shah, therefore, submitted that if the pleadings in the form of written statement as well as the depositions are considered, it clearly suggests negligence in performance of the duty by all concerned including defendant Nos. 3 and 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Sandip Shah, therefore, submitted that if the pleadings in the form of written statement as well as the depositions are considered, it clearly suggests negligence in performance of the duty by all concerned including defendant Nos. 3 and 5. The Civil Hospital would be liable vicariously for the act of negligence by defendant No. 3. [15] He, therefore, submitted that when the person has lost vision of both the eyes because of any such carelessness or negligence, it cannot be a ground for further scrutiny on any technical grounds raised on the medical opinion. He submitted that the evidence on record as discussed at length in the impugned judgment clearly suggests that there was negligence on the part of original defendant No. 3-Dr. Bhikubhai Patel as well as defendant No. 5-Dr. Jagdishbhai Shah and both the doctors have failed in discharge of their duty exhibiting reasonable care and standard expected of a person in the medical profession. He, therefore, submitted that the appeals may be dismissed.” 4. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manju Sarkar and others vs. Mabish Miah and others, (2014) 14 SCC 21 have held that in the absence of clause of contract of insurance excluding provision for interest, the insurance of company is liable to pay interest. Their Lordships have held as under: “13. A contention was raised by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 Insurance Company that they are no liable to pay the interest component and reliance was placed on the decision of New India Assurances Co. Ltd. Vs. Harshad Bhai Amrut Bhai Modhiya and another [ (2006) 5 SCC 192 ] In the facts of the case on which the said decision arose, the contract of insurance entered into between the parties contained a proviso that the insurance granted is not extended to include any interest. In the present case there is nothing on record to show that respondent No.3 Insurance Company either pleaded about existence of such a clause in the contract of insurance or led any evidence to the said effect and hence the said decision will not help respondent No.3 in any way and the contention raised is devoid of merit.” 5. The amount of interest has to be paid from the date of accident and not from the date of award. 6. The amount of interest has to be paid from the date of accident and not from the date of award. 6. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2014) 2 SCC 298 have held that appellants were entitled to 12% interest from date of accident. Their Lordships have held as under: “[8] We have perused the aforesaid judgment. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. This Court considered the earlier judgment relied upon by the High Court and observed that the judgments in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed, 2007 2 SCC 349 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir, 2009 6 SCC 280 were per incuriam having been rendered without considering the earlier decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, 1976 1 SCC 289 . In the aforesaid judgment, upon consideration of the entire matter, a fourjudge Bench of this Court had held that the compensation has to be paid from the date of the accident. [9] Following the aforesaid judgments, this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Siby George and others reiterated the legal position and held as follows: "11. The Court then referred to a Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi and approved it insofar as it followed the decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo. 12. The decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo was by a four-judge Bench and in Valsala K. by a three-judge Bench of this Court. Both the decisions were, thus, fully binding on the Court in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir, each of which was heard by two Judges. But the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K. were not brought to the notice of the Court in the two later decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir. 13. In the light of the decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K., 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. The decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir. 13. In the light of the decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K., 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. The decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir insofar as they took a contrary view to the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K. do not express the correct view and do not make binding precedents." [10] In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The appellants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the accident.” 7. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Valsala K. 2000 ACJ 5 have held that 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. Their Lordships have held as under: “[3] A four Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1 SCC 289 : ( AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 Lab IC 222) speaking through Singhal, J. has 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. [4] A two Judge Bench of this Court in The New India Assurance Company Limited v. V. K. Neelakandan, Civil Appeal Nos. 16904-16906 of 1996, decided on 6-11-1996, however, took the view that Workmen's Compensation Act, being a special legislation for the benefit of the workmen, the benefit as available on the date of adjudication should be extended to the workmen and not the compensation which was payable on the date of the accident. 16904-16906 of 1996, decided on 6-11-1996, however, took the view that Workmen's Compensation Act, being a special legislation for the benefit of the workmen, the benefit as available on the date of adjudication should be extended to the workmen and not the compensation which was payable on the date of the accident. The two Judge Bench in Neelakandan's case (supra) , however, did not take notice of the judgment of the larger Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo's case ( AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 Lab IC 222) as it presumably was not brought to the notice of their Lordships. Be that as it may, in view of the categorical law laid down by the larger Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo's case, the view expressed by the two Judge Bench in Neelakandan's case is not correct. [7] Insofar as these special leave petitions are concerned, we find that the accident took place long time back. Compensation became payable to the workmen, as it is not disputed that the accidents occurred during the course of employment, as per the law prior to the amendment made in 1995. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, pettiness of the amounts involved in each of the cases and the time that has since elapsed, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders, decided on the basis of the 1995 amendment, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, dismiss the special leave petitions, but, after clarifying the law, as noticed above.” 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. Award is modified to the extent that claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 12% from the date of accident, which shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court, within four weeks. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.