JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. - 1. In this appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), insurer has assailed the impugned award dated 17.02.2006, passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (S.D.M), Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in File No. 8, titled as Hima Devi & others Versus Bhupender Pal & another. 2. Appeal stands admitted on the following substantial question of law:-- "1. Whether the findings of the Court below are result of complete mis-reading, misinterpretation of the evidence and material placed on record and against the settled position of law?" 3. Late Maidhar was employed with Bhupender Pal (respondent No. 5 herein). Allegedly during the course of employment he died on 19.03.2004. The deceased, who was employed as a Driller, slipped off the cliff and fell into a gorge, resulting into his death, which was spontaneous. Even though no FIR was registered, but however, respondent No. 5, who had purchased a workmen's compensation general policy with respect to ten number of employees/labourers, informed the insurer about such fact. This was vide communication dated 21.03.2004. No action was taken by the insurer, resultantly the claimants, who were dependent upon the deceased, filed a petition under Section 22 of the Act, in which following issues stood framed:-- 4. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, in terms of the impugned award dated 17.02.2006 petition stands allowed in the following terms:-- "I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsels at length and have gone through entire oral as well as documentary evidences very carefully. On the consideration of entire evidence, I am of the opinion that the application deserved to be allowed. I therefore allow the compensation claim of the petitioner. since the petitioner was 33 years of age at the time of accident as per D.O.B. (18.4.70) depicted in Pariwar Register Nakal exhibited as PW1/B and salary of the deceased was Rs. 3900/- Per month (Rs. 130/- per day) as per the Muster Roll of March's month exhibited as RW1/A coupled with the statement of RW1, the amount of compensation calculated as per schedule is Rs. 1950X 201.66=3,93237. 3900/- Per month (Rs. 130/- per day) as per the Muster Roll of March's month exhibited as RW1/A coupled with the statement of RW1, the amount of compensation calculated as per schedule is Rs. 1950X 201.66=3,93237. The above compensation amount shall carry an interest of 12% Per Annum from the date of occurrence till deposition of claim in the court as per provision of section 4A(3) (a) of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The respondent No. 2 National Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation claim as the workmen was insured with Insurance Company at the relevant time. A dasti/postal copy be given/sent to the Insurance Company free of cost." 5. Following facts are not in dispute: (i) No FIR in relation to the incident in question was registered; (ii) Also no postmortem of the dead body was conducted; (iii) Claimants were dependent upon the deceased; and (iv) Present appellant had issued a policy in favour of respondent No. 5. 6. Question which needs to be considered is as to whether in the absence of the incident being reported to the authorities and FIR being lodged, liability can be fastened upon the insurer or not; also as to whether the deceased died in the course of employment; and in any event, whether the deceased was covered under the policy of insurance or not. 7. Fact as to whether deceased was employed with respondent No. 5 and died during the course of employment stands proved on record through the testimonies of Parma Ram (PW.3) and Guru (PW.4). Also Tek Chand (RW.2) Supervisor of the employer has deposed to such effect. There is no reason to disbelieve their testimonies. The findings returned by the authority qua issue No. 1 are totally borne out from the record. 8. It is no doubt true that no FIR in relation to the incident was lodged with the police, but then petitioners (claimants herein) have placed on record resolution of Gram Panchayat Dhanyara (Ex. PW.1/A), evidencing the fact that accident took place in the remotest corner of the State and nearest Police Station/District Hospital was at a distance of 150 kms. It is in this backdrop, as is so written in communication dated 21.03.2004 (Ex. RW.1/B), that family members/villagers decided to cremate the body. In any event such fact stood communicated by the insured to the insurer vide very same communication. It is in this backdrop, as is so written in communication dated 21.03.2004 (Ex. RW.1/B), that family members/villagers decided to cremate the body. In any event such fact stood communicated by the insured to the insurer vide very same communication. At no point in time, these facts stood refuted by the insurer. It is not the requirement of the law that till such time the matter is reported to the police or the authorities, insurer is not liable for the liability under the insurance policy. The fact that accident took place during the course of employment stands evidently established on record. Family members did not suspect any foul play and perhaps it was also for this reason the matter was not reported to the police. Hence submission needs to be rejected. 9. From the document Ex. RW.1/A, it is evident that the deceased was working on daily wages as a Driller. Muster Roll (Ex. RW.1/A) for the month of March 2004 establishes that deceased was paid daily wages @ Rs. 130/-. Deceased was not a regular employee and was paid wages only for the days he worked. Even for Sunday when no work was done, he was not paid any amount. As such, monthly income of the deceased cannot be said to be more than Rs. 4000/-, so as to exclude him from cover of the insurance policy. 10. It is also argued that the insurer is not liable to pay interest, in terms of the impugned award. Contention only merits rejection. Liability of the insurer to pay interest has not been specifically excluded in the insurance policy. Hence in view of law laid down by the apex Court in Manju Sarkar and others Versus Mabish Miah and others, , (2014) 14 SCC 21 , insurer is liable to pay the same, more so, in view of timely intimation by the insured. 11. As per the ratio of law laid down by the apex Court in Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and others Versus National Insurance Company Limited and others, , (2014) 2 SCC 298 , interest has to be paid from the date when the payment fell due, which has been held to be the date of occurrence of the accident. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned award. 12. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned award. 12. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the impugned award is erroneous, perverse or unsustainable in law. As such, substantial question of law No. 1 is answered accordingly. 13. With the aforesaid observations, present appeal stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.