JUDGMENT : Kh. Nobin Singh, J. Heard Shri A. Dani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri S. Jibon, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. None is present for the respondent No. 2. 2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the award dated 21-08-2007 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Manipur in W.C. Case No.8 of 2005. 3. The respondent No. 1 was a workman employed by the respondent No. 2, the owner of the vehicle namely a Tata Bus. In an accident occurred due to blasting of powerful bomb thrown by some unknown persons inside the vehicle which was moving on the National Highway No. 39, the respondent No. 1 sustained injuries for which a case under FIR No. 16(2)05 KPS u/s 307/326/427/34 IPC and Section 25 (1-C) A. Act had been registered by the Kakching Police Station. On the date of the accident, the respondent No. 1 was 25 years of age and was receiving monthly wages of Rs. 3,500/- per month. When the respondent No. 2 failed to pay the compensation under the provisions of the Act, the respondent No. 1 filed the application before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation for payment of compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. In the written statements filed on behalf of the appellant and the respondent No. 2, it is not denied that the respondent was a workman employed by the respondent No. 2. After having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Commissioner inter-alia held that the respondent No. 1 was employed by the respondent No. 2 in connection with the operation of his vehicle and that the accident occurred while the respondent No. 1 was being employed by the respondent No. 2. After examining the evidence on record, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4, 52,088/- only and not Rs. 5 lakhs as claimed by him. The Commissioner came to the further conclusion that the respondent No. 2 is liable to pay the compensation for the injuries sustained by the respondent No. 1 with simple interest @ 12 per cent per annum and that the appellant is liable to indemnify the respondent No. 2. 4, 52,088/- only and not Rs. 5 lakhs as claimed by him. The Commissioner came to the further conclusion that the respondent No. 2 is liable to pay the compensation for the injuries sustained by the respondent No. 1 with simple interest @ 12 per cent per annum and that the appellant is liable to indemnify the respondent No. 2. Accordingly, in terms of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Commissioner passed the award directing the respondent No. 2 to deposit the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,52,088/- on or before 20-10-2007 with simple interest @ 12 per cent per annum from the date of the accident. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenged the award mainly on two grounds- (a) the learned Commissioner erred in directing that the interest on compensation @ 12 per cent per annum be paid from the date of the accident and not from the date of the judgment and (b) that the learned Commissioner erred in directing that the interest on the amount of compensation be paid by the appellant. However, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has fairly submitted that so far as the first ground is concerned, the same is covered by the judgment and order dated 28-04-2016 passed by this court in MFA No. 19 of 2008, reported in 2016 (2) T.A.C. 781 (Mani.) and has therefore confined his argument only in respect of the second ground. In order to support his contention, he has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2333 of 2006 decided on 28-04-2006, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya & anr. wherein the issue was as to whether interest is payable by an insurer while indemnifying the insured, the amount of compensation awarded against him under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appellant therein, the National India Insurance Company was not liable for the interest and the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it very clear that the employer should be liable to pay the amount of interest to the claimant. 5. 5. On perusal of the said decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is seen that the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has force and substance and that the issue involved herein is squarely covered by the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya & anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to its earlier decisions, was of the view that a contract of insurance is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act wherein there is no statutory liability on the Insurance Company. The Insurance Act does not contain a provision like Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The statutory liability under Workmen's Compensation Act is on the employer. In the instant case also, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid, the respondent No. 2 being the employer, he is liable to pay interest on the amount of compensation. Moreover, the respondent No. 2, despite notice being duly served upon him as seen from the office report dated 03-01-2009, has not appeared before this court in person nor has he entered appearance through an advocate and therefore, he shall be deemed to have chosen not to contest the appeal. 6. For the reasons stated herein above, the appeal is allowed in part with the direction that an interest @ 12 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation i.e., Rs. 4,52,088/- only shall be paid by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 1 from the date of the accident. There shall be no order as to costs.