JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J The respondent No. 1 being the dependent of deceased Pratap Sharma, on occurrence of demise of the latter during the course of his employment under his employer, preferred a petition for compensation against the relevant employee wherein he impleaded the appellant herein as a respondent. It is not controverted qua the demise of deceased occurring during the course of his employment under his employer nor also it is in dispute qua the employer of the deceased workman at the relevant time holding an insurance cover from the appellant herein covering the relevant liability towards compensation arising from occurrence of demise of workman/workmen during the course of his/their performing employment under his/their employer. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company has contended qua the quantification by learned Commissioner of the deceased workman drawing wages in the sum of Rs.7000/- per mensem is not borne out from the evidence on record. She submits that the employer had in his apposite reply furnished to the claim petition made an espousal therein of the deceased workman drawing wages quantified at a rate of Rs.5000/- per mensem, amount whereof stands contended to be the relevant sum of money whereto the relevant statutory principles were enjoined to be applied for arriving at the compensation amount payable to the father of the deceased workman whereas the learned Commissioner in his impugned award depending upon the relevant testifications adduced in support of the claim petition where within be speakings occur of the deceased workman drawing from his employment under his employer wages quantified at a rate of Rs.7000/- per mensem his hence committed an illegality. However, the aforesaid submission is unacceptable to this Court as the mere occurrence of the aforesaid factum in the pleadings of the appellant herein unless testified would not hold any probative worth nor would it constrain this Court to on anvil thereof reverse the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner qua the deceased workman drawing wages quantified at a rate of Rs.7000/- per mensem. Also the employer has omitted to adduce the relevant register of wages maintained by him personifying his defraying to the deceased workman wages quantified at a rate of Rs.5000/- per mensem whereas it constituted the best evidence for dispelling the testification of the claimant qua his deceased son drawing wages quantified at a rate of Rs.7000/- per mensem from his employment as a driller under respondent No.1, omission whereof renders the testification of the claimant qua the facet aforesaid to be credible also reliance thereupon being warranted. Consequently, this Court holds qua the learned Commissioner not moving astray while relying upon the testifications of AW-1 and AW-2 qua the aforesaid factum. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends qua the fastening in the impugned order of liability of interest upon the appellant not warranting its standing countenanced by this Court. The best evidence to succor her submission was constituted in the relevant insurance cover executed inter se respondent No.1 with the appellant herein. However, the aforesaid insurance cover holding manifestations therein qua the liability of interest qua the compensation amount assessed under the Act being unfastenable upon the appellant remained un-adduced in evidence whereupon this Court is constrained to conclude of the relevant liability of interest fastened upon the appellant herein by the learned Commissioner not warranting any interference. Nonetheless, for want of the appellant not discharging within the time mandated therein the relevant liability fastened upon it, the learned Commissioner had quantified the relevant penalty imposable upon it @ 25% of the compensation amount. The aforesaid portion of the award hence fastening an exorbitant liability of penalty upon the insurer for want of its within the time mandated therein discharging the apposite liability fastened upon it in the impugned award warrants interference. 4. Consequently, the delay, if any, on the part of the appellant to discharge the apposite liability fastened upon it under the impugned award shall entail upon the insurer, liability of penalty at the rate 5% of the compensation amount. 5. In view of the above, the present appeal stands partly allowed. Impugned order/award is to the extent aforestated modified. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.