JUDGMENT : Z.K SAIYED, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.08.2014 passed by the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Labour Court, Valsad in W.C.N F Case No. 04 of 2010, whereby the learned Commissioner has granted the application by awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,45,152/- with 12% interest. 2. Facts of the case are such that applicant was working as machine operator on the grinder machine of the opponent No1's company. On 01.09.2003, at 11:00 p.m, when the applicant was working to grinder machine, the right hand of the applicant came under the machine and sustained serious injuries. Due to the serious injury, the applicant admitted in the Mill Orthopedic Hospital, Valsad for the treatment as indoor patient. Applicant was treated in the hospital from 02.09.2003 to 11.09.2003 The carpal of the right hand of the applicant was am putted. The said accident occurred during the course of employment of the employee. Due to the said accident, the applicant could not pull up the weighted things and unable to work as machine operator in future. So, the applicant has to sustain the heavy economic loss in future. The applicant was 20 years old at the time of incident and the opponent was paying Rs. 1800/- per month towards salary as machine operator. Due to the said injury, the applicant sustained 60% permanent disability. Therefore, considering all these, the applicant has claimed the compensation of Rs. 1,45,152/- towards interest. The learned Commissioner has passed the aforesaid order. Hence, this appeal. 3. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Maulik J. Shelat, appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company. The respondents are served, but none present. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company has contended that the trial Court has committed error in allowing the workman compensation and holding liable the Insurance Company for the compensation. He further contended that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the insured person and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company has contended that the trial Court has committed error in allowing the workman compensation and holding liable the Insurance Company for the compensation. He further contended that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the insured person and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation. Learned counsel drew attention of the Court to the Workmen's Compensation (General) Policy and contended that as per the policy, only five workmen ere covered under it, but it has come on record that there were almost seven-eight workmen working with respondent No. 2 and therefore, the same amounts to breach of condition of policy by insured for which the appellant-insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 5. Learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the learned Commissioner has committed error in considering the income of the insured person as Rs. 1800/- per month in absence of any documentary evidence in respect of income on record. 6. It is required to be noted that the present case is not a case where an accident has occurred by use of a motor vehicle in respect whereof the contract of insurance would be governed by the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Unless the said contract is governed by the provisions of a statute, the parties are free to enter into a contract as for their own volition. The Compensation Act, 1923 does not contain a provision like Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Where a statute does not provide for a compulsory insurance or the extent thereof, it will bear repetition to state, the parties are free to choose their own terms of contract. It is, therefore, well settled that in case of contracting out, so far as reimbursement of amount of interest is concerned, the same is not prohibited by a statute. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider a petition in the case of P.J Narayan v. Union of India, [reported in 2004 ACJ 452] with a prayer to direct the Insurance Company to delete the clause in the Insurance Policy which provides that in case of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the Insurance Company will not be liable to pay interest. In the said decision the Apex Court observed as under: 1. In the said decision the Apex Court observed as under: 1. This writ petition is for the purpose of directing Insurance Company to delete the clause in the Insurance Policy which provides that in case of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the Insurance Company will not be liable to pay interest. We see no substance in the writ petition. There is no statutory liability on the Insurance company. The statutory liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act is on the employer. An insurance is a matter of contract between the Insurance Company and the insured. It is always open to the Insurance Company to refuse to insure. Similarly they are entitled to provide by contract that they will not take on liability for interest. In the absence of any statute to that effect, insurance Company cannot be forced by Courts to take on liabilities which they do not want to take on. The Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.” 8. Thus, the law is settled on this aspect that the statutory liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act is on the employer and unless a separate clause included for the liability of interest, the Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of interest especially in case where the accident is not related to a motor vehicle accident. 9. Thus, the Insurance Company is not liable to make the payment of interest. As regards the interest liability as held in the case of Ved Prakash (supra) is concerned, the same was distinguished on facts. In the said case it was a case where an accident has occurred by use of motor vehicle in respect whereof the contract of insurance would be governed by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore the Insurance Company was held liable. 10. On the facts of the present case, the accident in question arose not on account of any vehicular accident and therefore the provisions of the Motor Vehicles are not applicable. Nothing is pointed out to this Court that there was an exception in the policy stipulating payment of interest. Consequently, in view of the above discussion, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of interest. Therefore the learned Commissioner committed an error in fastening the liability of interest on the Insurance Company. 11. Nothing is pointed out to this Court that there was an exception in the policy stipulating payment of interest. Consequently, in view of the above discussion, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of interest. Therefore the learned Commissioner committed an error in fastening the liability of interest on the Insurance Company. 11. In the premises aforesaid, the award of interest in the impugned award is quashed and set aside qua the appellant-Insurance Company. The rest of the award is not disturbed. It will be open to the claimant to recover the amount of interest from the employer. The impugned award is modified accordingly. Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.