JUDGMENT : S.H. Vora, J. 1. By way of present first appeal filed under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short "the Act"), the appellant -Reliance General Insurance Company Limited challenges award dated 27.5.2015 passed by the learned Commissioner for the Workmen's Compensation Act, Labour Court No. 2, Surat (for short "learned Commissioner") in WC (Fatal) No. 41 of 2012, whereby the learned Commissioner directed the appellant and respondent No. 1 to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 8,61,120/- with interest to the legal heirs of deceased employee and further respondent No. 1 was directed to pay 30% penalty on the said amount. Learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati appearing for the appellant would contend that the learned Commissioner has erred in issuing direction to pay compensation amount with interest as it has no jurisdiction to grant interest within the meaning of provisions of the Act. In addition to it, learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati would contend that there is no evidence establishing employee -employer relationship between the deceased and respondent No. 1 and further the learned Commissioner erred in assessing monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- in absence of documentary evidence on record. 2. Upon hearing the submissions made at bar and after perusing the impugned award, it is evident that at the relevant time, deceased Lavkushbhai was driving the tempo of ownership of respondent No. 1 and he died at the time of his employment with respondent No. 1. It is also evident that at the relevant point of time, respondent No. 1 was paid wages of Rs. 10,000/-, but the learned Commissioner assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- in light of upper limit fixed under the Act. There is no dispute that said tempo was insured with the present appellant as per insurance policy Exh. 39. There is no oral or documentary evidence adduced by the appellant to controvert the above aspects/evidence produced before the learned Commissioner and therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the findings so recorded by the learned Commissioner and therefore, there is no substance in the last two contentions raised by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati appearing for the appellant - insurance company. 3. Nanavati appearing for the appellant - insurance company. 3. Now coming to the first contention so as to avoid liability to pay interest on compensation amount is concerned, upon perusal of policy itself, there is no proviso in the insurance policy which excludes the appellant from the liability to pay interest. Apart from it, the decision rendered in case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya, (2006) 5 SCC 192 : 2006 (109) FLR 1074 (SC), and more particularly observations recorded in para 17 is complete answer to the issue raised by the appellant in the present appeal. The observations recorded in para 17 reads as under: "17. Yet again in L.R. Ferro Alloys Ltd. (supra), this Court opined that if an amount of compensation is not deposited within a period of one month, the insurance company shall be liable to reimburse the owner only the amount of compensation with interest therefrom but not the penalty imposed on insurer employer for default of payment of amount stating: The only contention put forth before us is that the entire liability including penalty and interest will have to be reimbursed by the insurance company and this aspect has not been examined by the learned Single Judge in the High Court and needs examination at our hands. In Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi, this Court after examining the entire scheme of the Act held that payment of interest and penalty are two distinct liabilities arising under the Act, while liability to pay interest is part and parcel of legal liability to pay compensation upon default of payment of that amount within one month. Therefore, claim for compensation along with interest will have to be made good jointly by the insurance company with the insured employer. But, so far as the penalty imposed on the insured employer is on account of his personal fault the insurance company cannot be made liable to reimburse penalty imposed on the employer. Hence the compensation with interest is payable by the insurance company but not penalty. Following the said decision and for the reasons stated therein, we modify the order made by the High Court to that extent. The appeal is allowed in part accordingly." 4. Hence the compensation with interest is payable by the insurance company but not penalty. Following the said decision and for the reasons stated therein, we modify the order made by the High Court to that extent. The appeal is allowed in part accordingly." 4. In view of above legal position, it is clear that the appellant is liable to pay compensation with interest under the provisions of the Act to the legal heirs of the deceased employee and therefore, there is no substance in the present appeal, which requires any interference at the hands of this Court. In the result, the appeal being devoid of any merit both on law and facts, stands dismissed at admission stage. Consequently, civil application also stands disposed of.