JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 ('the Act') has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved against the award dated 12.5.2000 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Jodhpur ('the Commissioner'), whereby the Commissioner awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.81,540/-, penalty to the extent of Rs.33,250/- and interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 3.5.1992. 2. The application for compensation was filed by claimants-respondents No. 1 to 4 against the respondent No. 5 Nizamuddin and appellant-Insurance Company for death of Satyanarain Singh, husband/father of the claimants, who was employed as driver of Jeep No. RJ-19-T-0163. 3. The claim was resisted by the respondents-Owner and the Insurance Company. 4. After the evidence was led by the parties, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.81,540/- as compensation, and on account of the delay in making payment of the amount of compensation imposed penalty of Rs.33,250/- and awarded interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 3.5.1992. 5. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner committed error in holding the Insurance Company liable for making payment of the amount of penalty and interest. It was further submitted that while calculating the amount also there is a mistake, inasmuch as, the amount of no fault liability deposited by the appellant to the extent of Rs.25,000/- was deducted from the amount of compensation, however, instead of Rs.56,500/-, the amount of Rs.66,500/- was arrived at and, therefore, the award passed by the Commissioner deserves to be modified/set aside to the said extent. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and ors., (1997) 8 SCC 1 . 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Owner supported the award passed by the Commissioner regarding the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company. It was submitted that once the Insurance is proved, the Insurance Company is required to reimburse the owner qua the entire award and cannot escape from the liability. It is submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. From the perusal of the award, arithmetical mistake as pointed out by Counsel for the appellant is obvious, inasmuch as, after deducting Rs.25,000/- from Rs.81,540/- instead of arriving at Rs.56,500/-. It is submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. From the perusal of the award, arithmetical mistake as pointed out by Counsel for the appellant is obvious, inasmuch as, after deducting Rs.25,000/- from Rs.81,540/- instead of arriving at Rs.56,500/-. The Commissioner has arrived at Rs.66,500/- and to that extent the said mistake deserves to be rectified. 10. So far as the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company for payment of amount of penalty and interest under the provisions of the Act is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ved Prakash Garg (supra) held as under- “As a result of the aforesaid discussion it must be held that the question posed for our consideration must be answered partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative. In other words the Insurance Company will be liable to meet the claim for compensation along with interest as imposed on the insured employer by the Workmen's Commissioner under the Compensation Act on the conjoint operation of Section 3 and Section 4A sub-section (3) (a) of the Compensation Act. So far as additional amount of compensation by way of penalty imposed on the insured employer by the Workmen's Commissioner under Section 4-A (3)(b) is concerned, however, the Insurance Company would not remain liable to reimburse the said claim and it would be the liability of the insured employer alone." 11. From the said law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is apparent that the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable for making of penalty, however, it is liable to make payment of interest on the amount of compensation and, therefore, to the said extent the award passed by the Commissioner deserves modification. 12. When this appeal came up for admission before this Court, as the appellant-Insurance Company had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,38,890/-, by noticing both the issues raised by the appellant-Insurance Company, this Court directed that a sum of Rs.95,650/- be disbursed to the claimants and rest of the amount kept in deposit with the Commissioner. 13. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is partly allowed, the award impugned is modified. It is hell that the appellant-Insurance Company is only liable to make payment of amount of compensation Rs. 13. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is partly allowed, the award impugned is modified. It is hell that the appellant-Insurance Company is only liable to make payment of amount of compensation Rs. 81,540/- and interest @ 6% per annum as awarded by Commissioner w.e.f. 3.5.1992 and is not liable to make payment of the amount of penalty and interest on amount of penalty and it is only the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No. 5 Nijamuddin, who is liable to make payment of the amount of penalty and interest thereon. 14. As the amount deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company other than the sum of Rs.95,650/- remains deposited with the Commissioner, the appellant-Insurance Company would be entitled to refund of the amount after the same is calculated by the Commissioner in terms of the modification as notice hereinbefore. The excess amount deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company refunded back to the appellant within a period of six weeks from the date certified copy of this judgment is placed before the Commissioner. The amount of penalty and interest thereon shall be liable to recovered from the owner by the claimants.