Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned order of 30.05.2009, rendered by the learned Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation, Chamba, whereby it awarded compensation comprised in a sum of Rs. 4,26,132/- to the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 4. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Gajinder Singh @ Bhindro was a workman employed by Naved Ali Shah, respondent No. 5 herein. On 24.03.2008 at 4.30 p.m. while working under instruction from respondent No. 5, he received head injuries owing to accident owing to which he died. The accident occurred at Village Mehla at Lakara-Bandla Road, District Chamba, H.P. during the course of his employment of late Gajinder Singh @ Bhindro, who received multiple injuries due to accident which resulted in his death. The petitioners respondents No. 1 to 4 herein are mother and children of late Gajinder Singh @ Bhindro who were totally dependent on him. 3. On filing the petition, both the parties were summoned. Respondents No. 1 to 4 herein have alleged that late Sh. Gajnder Singh @ Bhindro received multiple injuries during the course of his employment when he was working at the site near Village Mehla on Mehla-Lakara-Bandla Road under instruction from respondent No. 5 herein when he met with an accident on 24.3.2008 and died due to the head injuries caused because of the accident. The cause of death was head injury leading to cardiovascular failure as mentioned in the postmortem report attached with the petition. The respondents No. 1 to 4 herein were totally dependent upon the income of the deceased workman. The deceased was getting a salary of Rs.4500/- per month from his employer, respondent No. 5 herein The deceased was 40 years old at the time of death. The petitioners-respondents No. 1 to 4 herein prayed that respondent No. 5 and the appellant herein be ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 8 lacs as compensation to the petitioners-respondent No. 1 to 4 herein. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the petition is maintainable in the present form ? …OPP 2. Whether the deceased died during the course of employment with respondent No. 1 ? 3. Relief, if any. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned Commissioner, the latter awarded compensation comprised in a sum of Rs. Whether the petition is maintainable in the present form ? …OPP 2. Whether the deceased died during the course of employment with respondent No. 1 ? 3. Relief, if any. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned Commissioner, the latter awarded compensation comprised in a sum of Rs. 4,26,132/- vis-à-vis the petitioners claimants-respondents No. 1 to 4 herein. 6. Now the Insurance Company, appellant herein has instituted the instant appeal before this Court wherein it assails the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner in his impugned order. When the appeal came up for admission on 21.10.2009, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted herebefore by the appellant Insurance Company against the order of the learned Commissioner on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the learned Commissioner below has rightly taken the salary of the deceased to be Rs. 4,500/- p.m. + Rs. 150/- per day as allowance in the absence of any evidence regarding the same and ignoring the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 ? ii) Whether the policy of insurance issued by the appellant covered the risk of the deceased and the findings to that effect recorded by the ld. Commissioner below are correct ? iii) Whether the ld. Commissioner below has rightly made the appellant liable to pay interest in view of the specific exclusion of the same in the policy issued by the appellant ? iv) Whether the findings of the learned Commissioner below regarding payment of penalty by the appellant on its failure to assign the amount of compensation within 30 days are correct in view of the fact that the learned Commissioner has already awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till the deposit of the amount ? Substantial questions of law :- 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has with vigour contended before this Court qua the legal frailty qua adding by the learned Commissioner to a sum of Rs 4,000/- drawn as wages per mensem by the deceased workman from his relevant employment under his employer, a further sum of Rs. Substantial questions of law :- 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has with vigour contended before this Court qua the legal frailty qua adding by the learned Commissioner to a sum of Rs 4,000/- drawn as wages per mensem by the deceased workman from his relevant employment under his employer, a further sum of Rs. 150/- per day, sum whereof purportedly stood paid as daily allowance to the deceased workman by his employer especially when it stands statutorily ousted besides when the aforesaid sum of daily allowance does not fall within the purview of “wages” defined in Section 2(m) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, whereupon he contends qua the impugned order warranting interference. “2(m) “Wages” includes any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money, other than a traveling allowance or the value of any traveling concession or a contribution paid by the employer of a workman towards any pension or provident fund or a sum paid to a workman to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment.” 8. Significantly apparently with “a traveling allowance” standing therewithin statutorily excluded from the statutorily parlance borne by “wages” drawn by a workman from his relevant employment under his employer, thereupon he with much vigor carries forward his submission by espousing qua with “daily allowance” constituted in a sum of Rs. 150/- per day also falling within the ambit of “traveling allowance” whereupon though the amount aforesaid stood statutorily mandated to stand excluded from a sum of Rs. 4,000/- drawn as wages per mensem by the deceased workman from his relevant employment under his employer whereas the learned Commissioner adding Rs. 150/- per day to the sum of Rs. 4,000/- per mensem hence has committed a gross illegality. However, the aforesaid contention warrants its standing not accepted, as an incisive perusal of the award pronounced by the learned Commissioner qua the facet aforestated stands anvilled upon the credible testification of PW-1 holding therewithin an articulation qua the deceased workman from his relevant employment under his employer drawing wages in a sum of Rs. 4,500/- per mensem whereto the learned Commissioner meted an apt deference to the relevant germane statutory principles for arriving at the sum of compensation payable to the claimants. 4,500/- per mensem whereto the learned Commissioner meted an apt deference to the relevant germane statutory principles for arriving at the sum of compensation payable to the claimants. Be that as it may with the employer not adducing cogent evidence for belying the factum aforesaid occurring in the testification embodied in the examination in chief of PW-1 wherefrom it is to stand concluded qua the employer acquiescing to the aforesaid relevant trite factum besides with the insurer also not adducing before the learned Commissioner the relevant germane evidence holding therewithin pronouncements contrary to the one unraveled by PW-1 warrants rejuvenated imputation of credence thereto arousable from the respondents in making the relevant omissions theirs hence acquiescing to the efficacy of the aforesaid trite factum. An incisive perusal of the award omits to make any display qua the learned Commissioner while his proceeding to compute the compensation amount payable to the claimants his therein adding to the sum of Rs. 4,500/- per mensem, a sum of Rs. 150/- per day purportedly received as a daily allowance by the deceased workman from his relevant employment under his employer. It appears qua the learned counsel for the appellant in proceeding to make the aforesaid submission whereupon this Court stood enjoined to formulate substantial question of law at Sr. No.1, his anvilling it upon PW-1 on standing held to cross examination by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 she while denying the apposite suggestion put thereat to her qua the deceased workman drawing a sum of Rs. 80/- per day as wages, hers deposing qua the deceased drawing a sum of Rs. 150/- per day, as wages from his relevant employment under his employer deposition whereof holds sinew arising from no apposite evidence for belying it standing adduced by the employer besides by the insurer. Significantly when reiteratedly the aforesaid communication makes a graphic visible display qua the per day wages drawn by the deceased workman from his relevant employment under his employer standing constituted in a sum of Rs. 150/- thereupon the learned Commissioner aptly computed the quantum of wages per mensem drawn by the deceased workman from his relevant employment under his employer whereupon he on meteing an apt deference thereon to the relevant statutory principle(s) assessed a just and fair compensation amount payable to the claimants. Naturally thereupon, there is no addition of any sum of Rs. 150/- thereupon the learned Commissioner aptly computed the quantum of wages per mensem drawn by the deceased workman from his relevant employment under his employer whereupon he on meteing an apt deference thereon to the relevant statutory principle(s) assessed a just and fair compensation amount payable to the claimants. Naturally thereupon, there is no addition of any sum of Rs. 150/- per day to a sum of Rs. 4,500/- per mensem nor also the sum of Rs. 150/- per day purportedly drawn as a daily allowance by the deceased workman from his relevant employment under his employer is unamenable to any construction qua it not constituting the wages per day drawn by the deceased workman significantly when thereupon the credible testification of PW(s) would suffer erosion besides also would lead to a fallacious inference not borne from any evidence qua a sum of Rs. 150/- per day not standing reared by the deceased workman for each day of work performed by him under his relevant employer. In sequel thereto, it was neither a traveling allowance nor a daily allowance nor hence it is construable for its standing excluded from the statutory definition of “wages” held in the apposite statutory provision engrafted in Section 2(m) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, rather it was the remuneration per day received by the deceased workman from his relevant employment under his employer rather it than any daily allowance reared by the deceased workman from his relevant employment under his employer. Conspicuously, question No.1 is accordingly answered against the insurer. 9. The insurance cover executed by the deceaseds’ employer with his insurer stood un-adduced into evidence by the insurer before the learned Commissioner, rather only a cover note comprised in Ex. R-1 with a disclosure therein qua it encompassing the contractual liability of the insurer for indemnifying the insured qua the judicially determined compensation amount qua three labourers engaged by him in blasting work/road cutting at Mehla Road, PWD Division, stood adduced by the insurer before the learned Commissioner. R-1 with a disclosure therein qua it encompassing the contractual liability of the insurer for indemnifying the insured qua the judicially determined compensation amount qua three labourers engaged by him in blasting work/road cutting at Mehla Road, PWD Division, stood adduced by the insurer before the learned Commissioner. Since at the relevant time uncontrovertedly the deceased was under the employment of respondent No. 5 necessarily hence, for the insurer holding a deft legal capacity for exculpating its apposite liability it stood enjoined to place before the learned Commissioner a comprehensive insurance cover making a disclosure therein qua the deceased workman not standing named therein to be a workman employed by his employer besides stood enjoined to therefrom made unveilings qua the insurer not executing with his employer any contract of insurance whereupon the insurer also stood not contractually enjoined to indemnify the insurer the compensation amount determined vis-à-vis the claimants in the event of the demise of their predecessor-in-interest occurring during the course of his performing duty under his employer. Since the comprehensive cover note with apposite unfoldments aforesaid occurring therein stood un-adduced by the insurer before the learned Commissioner no conclusion can stand formed qua the insurer not contracting to cover the risk of the deceased whereupon nor also it can stand concluded qua the learned Commissioner committing any gross illegality in fastening upon the insurer the apposite liability qua the compensation amount determined by him. 10. Likewise, the insurer for exculpating its determined liability to pay interest on the compensation amount pronounced in his impugned award by the learned Commissioner stood enjoined to place on record a comprehensive insurance cover executed by it vis-à-vis the employer of the deceased workman/insured, with a display occurring therewithin qua the apposite liability of interest levied by the learned Commissioner on the relevant compensation amount assessed by it being unfastenable upon it. However, the aforesaid comprehensive insurance cover executed inter-se the insurer and the insured employer of the deceased workman, remained un-adduced into evidence by the insured before the learned Commissioner. Its non adduction therebefore obviously precluded the learned Commissioner to aptly make therefrom the apposite aforestated pronounced conclusion also its non adduction forbids this Court to exculpate the insurer from its judicially pronounced liability of it being amenable to pay interest upon the judicially determined compensation amount vis-à-vis the claimants. 11. Its non adduction therebefore obviously precluded the learned Commissioner to aptly make therefrom the apposite aforestated pronounced conclusion also its non adduction forbids this Court to exculpate the insurer from its judicially pronounced liability of it being amenable to pay interest upon the judicially determined compensation amount vis-à-vis the claimants. 11. Be that as it may, given the trite expostulation of law held in a catena of judicial verdicts qua the liability of penalty being unfastenable upon the insurer, rather the liability of penalty arising from non compliance with the mandate of sub section (1) of Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act by the employer of the deceased workman being fastenable upon the employer, constrains this Court to reverse that portion of the impugned award whereupon the liability of statutory penalty for evident infraction of the mandate sub section (1) of Section 10 of the Act stands fastened upon the insurer. Consequently, the liability of statutory penalty as stands determined by the learned Commissioner in his impugned award stands fastened upon the employer of the deceased workman. The impugned award stands modified to the extent aforesaid.