JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Under the impugned award, the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Commissioner under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, Una, determined compensation in a 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? sum of Rs. 2,54,813/- vis-a-vis the claimants, (i) the latter where of are the dependents of deceased workman, one Rakesh Kumar, (ii) who during the course of his employment under respondents No. 2 and 3, met his end, in an accident involving tractor No. PB-08-4259. The learned Commissioner also proceeded to fasten the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the Insurance Company/appellant herein besides it levied thereon interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of accident. 2. Standing aggrieved by the aforesaid rendition, the insurance company-appellant herein, hence, concerts to assail it, by preferring an appeal therefrom, before this Court. 3. When the appeal came up for admission, on 19.04.2007, this Court, admitted the appeal, instituted here before by the Insurance Company/appellant herein, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the Commissioner erred while granting compensation when the Vehicle meant for Agricultural use was permitted to be used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, i.e., for commercial purposes, i.e. levelling of land for carving plots in the colony? 2. Whether the Commissioner erred while shifting the burden to prove the validity of driving licence upon the appellant in the absence of disclosure of any details or showing satisfaction by the owner of the vehicle? 3. Whether the 1d. Commissioner was justified in imposing the interest and penalty on award amount upon the insurance company in the absence of any contract or statutory provision empowering him to do so? Substantial question of law No. 1. 4. 3. Whether the 1d. Commissioner was justified in imposing the interest and penalty on award amount upon the insurance company in the absence of any contract or statutory provision empowering him to do so? Substantial question of law No. 1. 4. Since, none of the substantial question(s) of law appertain to the Insurance Company, contesting the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner (i) qua evidence on record unveiling existence of relationship of employer and employee inter se the deceased workman vis-a-vis his employer (ii) also when the Insurance Company, omits to, contest the pronounced factum, of the deceased workman, at the stage contemporaneous, to the occurrence of an accident, involving the tractor bearing No. PB-08-4259, not rendering, employment under his employer, (iii) thereupon, it is not imperative to render any pronouncement in respect of the validity of findings recorded by the learned Commissioner qua the claimants, proving, that their predecessor-in-interest, deceased workman one Rakesh Kumar, during, the course of his rendering employment in the ill fated vehicle, thereupon, his suffering demise. 5. The learned counsel appearing, for the Insurance Company contended with vigour, that with un-controverted evidence existing on record, in respect of the deceased workman, plying the ill-fated tractor, for levelling plots, (i) hence, when the contract of insurance executed inter se its owner and the Insurance Company, interdicted its user except for agricultural work, (ii) whereas, it being plied in digression therefrom, (iii) hence rendered the fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon the Insurance Company to be not carrying any validity. However, in making the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company (iv) has irrevered the existence of a suggestion, put by its counsel to RW-1, the power of attorney holder, of the registered owner(s) of the ill fated tractor, with an echoing therein of his thereby concerting to elicit from him, the factum of the registered owner(s) of the ill-fated tractor, defraying premium vis-a-vis the Insurance Company, for hence enabling, the registered owner(s), to enable the driver engaged thereon, to ply it, for a purpose other than agricultural purpose. The effect of the aforesaid suggestion meted vis-a-vis RW-1, by the counsel for the Insurance Company while subjecting him to cross-examination is of hence its candidly voicing, (v) that in case the registered owner(s) of the ill-fated tractor had defrayed premium vis-a-vis the Insurance Company for its apposite user, by them, for commercial purpose, thereupon, the factum of its, at the relevant time, being plied for a purpose other than agricultural purpose, would not, constitute breach of the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance executed inter se the Insurance Company and the registered owner(s), of the relevant tractor. Even if, RW-1 feigned ignorance in respect thereto, the effect of the aforesaid suggestion yet remain(s) uneffaced, (vi) rather thereupon it was imperative for the Insurance Company, to, by adducing best evidence, comprised in receipts qua liquidation of premium(s) by the registered owner(s) vis-a-vis the ill-fated tractor, with theirs also holding candid portrayals, of the amounts borne therein, being, not, construable of the registered owner (s), hence even with its covering risk(s), for any mishap involving the relevant tractor, upon its being evidently plied for commercial purpose(s) also, thereupon being capacitated to obtain the apposite indeminification(s), from, the insurer. Even though, the apposite revelations borne in Ex. Rx, reveal, of, premium being defrayed by the registered owner(s) vis-a-vis the insurance company, nonetheless, therefrom it is not apt to conclude (vii) that the liquidation of premium(s) by the registered owner(s) vis-a-vis the Insurance Company, was only, with respect to hence, its covering liability, qua the tractor being plied for agricultural purpose. For hence ripping apart the effect, of the apposite premium(s) borne therein, being not defrayed, by the registered owner(s) vis-avis the insurance company, for covering risks/liability(ies) upon its being plied only for agricultural purpose, (viii) it was imperative for the insurance company, to also adduce into evidence, all the details of premium(s), defrayed by the registered owner(s) vis-a-vis the insurance company and their adduction, making vivid display, of the amount(s) of premium borne therein, being vis-a-vis covering(s) of risk, only upon the apposite tractor being driven solitarily for agricultural purpose. Non-adduction of the aforesaid best evidence, constrains, an inference of the registered owner(s) of the ill-fated tractor, (ix) liquidating premium(s) vis-a-vis the Insurance company, whereupon the risk(s) of the tractor being plied for commercial purpose, stood also covered, (x) thereupon, upon, the tractor being plied for commercial purpose, no infraction, of the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance, executed inter se the insurance company and the registered owner(s) of the ill-fated tractor, hence occurred. Consequently, substantial question of law is answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellant. Substantial question of law No. 2. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has contended, that in the absence of the claimants tendering into evidence, the driving licence of the deceased workman, hence, the deceased workman was not, at the apposite time, holding a effective and valid driving licence, to drive the ill-fated vehicle, (I) whereas with the learned Commissioner making the conclusion, that for want of the Insurance Company adducing proof in respect of validity of the driving licence, of the deceased workman, it has committed a gross procedural error, (ii) as also, has rendered an erroneous findings upon the issue, appertaining to the deceased workman holding an effective and valid driving licence, at the time of his driving the ill-fated tractor. 7. Since, the Insurance Company for want of the deceased workman, not, at the relevant time, hence possessing a valid and effective driving licence, to drive the ill-fated tractor, intended to exculpate its apposite indemnificatory liability, (i) thereupon, the insurance company, for succeeding in its endeavour, was enjoined to dispel the vigour of the oral testification rendered by the claimants, of the deceased workman, at the relevant time, possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the ill-fated tractor. The adduction of evidence, in respect thereto, by the Insurance Company was hence imperative. The adduction of evidence, in respect thereto, by the Insurance Company was hence imperative. Since, through the aegis, of the learned Commissioner, elicitation''s of the driving licence of the deceased workman, could well have been made by the counsel, for the Insurance Company, from the relevant records, in respect thereto, held by the Motor Licencing Authority concerned, (ii) also upon details thereof being withheld by the employer or by the claimants, thereupon, their counsel, for ensuring apt elicitation''s, could well prior thereto, seek, the assistance of the learned Commissioner, for hence the apposite unveilings ensuing from the claimants or from the employers of the deceased workman. (iii) Moreover, also upon failure(s), of the claimants or of the employers of the deceased workman, to make any befitting response thereto, hence, an adverse inference was drawable against the claimants, besides against the employer of the deceased workman. However, the counsel for the Insurance Company, omitted to, before the Commissioner, make any concert, for making the apposite elicitation(s) from the claimants or from the employers of the deceased workman, (iv) wherefrom it is apt to conclude that, no, adverse inference is drawable against the employers of the deceased workman, qua theirs engaging him upon the ill-fated tractor, despite, his not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Consequently, the effect of the aforesaid omission, is, that the inference drawn by the learned Commissioner, of the deceased workman, at the relevant time (v) holding a valid and effective driving licence, to drive the ill-fated tractor, being neither fallacious nor (vi) in the learned Commissioner seeking proof, from, the Insurance Company, upon, the issue appertaining to the deceased workman, at the relevant time, possessing a valid and effective driving licence, for enabling him to drive the relevant vehicle, has committed any gross illegality. Consequently, substantial question of law is answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellants. Substantial question of law No. 3. 8. The learned Commissioner, had, upon the principal sum of compensation, levied interest at the rate of 12% per anum from the date of accident. The aforesaid levying of interest @ 12% per annum upon the principal compensation amount, is per se, within the domain of clause (a) of sub section (3) of Section 40A of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The aforesaid levying of interest @ 12% per annum upon the principal compensation amount, is per se, within the domain of clause (a) of sub section (3) of Section 40A of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The reason being, the liability of the employer, to liquidate compensation amount vis-a-vis the dependents, of the deceased workman, being statutorily aroused "as soon as it fell due". The statutory coinage "from the date it fell due" existing in sub-section 3 of Section 4-A of the Act, is under a catena of judicial verdicts, ascribed the signification, of, defrayment(s) of apposite statutory liability, being fastenable, upon the employer in quick promptitude or in immediacy, of the apposite ill-fated mishap. Also even if, the liability of "statutory penalty", contemplated within the four corners, of clause (b) to sub-section 3 of Section 4-A of the Act, provisions whereof extracted hereinafter:- "4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.- (1) Compensation under section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim. (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall-- (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent. (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall-- (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and (b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent, of such amount by way of penalty:" is solitarily fastenable upon the employer, (I) nonetheless, the liability of interest, upon, the principal compensation amount, is within the parameter(s) of clause(a) to sub-section 3 of Section 4-A of the Act, hence fastenable upon the Insurance Company, especially when a valid contract, of insurance stands executed inter se it with the registered owner (s) of the relevant vehicle. Moreover, with subsistence of a valid contract inter se both, for the relevant purpose, renders, both the employers, of deceased workman and the insurer, to be hence vicariously and jointly liable vis-a-vis defrayment of amount of compensation determined under the Act, (ii) unless, the apposite insurance cover, makes, vivid depictions therein, of the liability of interest levied, upon, the principal compensation amount, being not, contractually fastenable upon the Insurance Company. However, the Insurance Company, had not placed on record, the comprehensive insurance cover, wherefrom, alone it was befitting, to make a conclusion, that it contains an apposite exclusionary clause, (iii) where within whose domain, the liability of interest borne on the principal compensation amount, was hence not leviable upon the Insurance Company. Consequently, withholding, of the insurance cover executed inter se the Insurance Company and the registered owner(s), of the ill-fated tractor, constrains drawing(s), of an adverse inference against the Insurance Company, that its with holdings, spurred from the evident factum (iv) that upon its tendering into evidence, it would have made disclosure(s), whereupon, the plea espoused by the insurance company, would stand negated. Accordingly, substantial question of law No. 3 is answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellant herein. 9. Accordingly, substantial question of law No. 3 is answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellant herein. 9. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned Commissioner are based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned commissioner has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 10. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned award is maintained and affirmed. No costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back.