JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. FAO No. 289 of 2014 The insurance company is aggrieved by the impugned award of 9.4.2014, recorded by the learned Commissioner Employees’ Compensation, Solan in W.C.A. No. 27/2 of 2013, whereby he, in the sums of money as borne in the operative part of the impugned verdict, hence assessed compensation upon the claimants. When this appeal came up for admission on 12.8.2014, this Court had admitted it, on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the insurance company can be fastened with the liability to pay penalty as envisaged under Section 4-A of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. (2) Whether the liability to pay interest to the employee by the insurance company is contrary to terms and conditions of the insurance Ex-RX. (3) Whether penalty as imposed is not in consonance with the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. Substantial Questions of Law No. 1 and 3 2. Though, in the operative part of the impugned verdict, the learned Commissioner has assessed compensation amount in a sum of Rs. 8,06,640/-, liability of defrayment whereof stands fastened upon the insurer, yet the learned Commissioner has also proceeded to, on failure of the insurer to, within one month from the date of recording of the impugned verdict, make deposit of the compensation amount, fasten a further liability upon it qua its also indemnifying the statutory penalty vis-a-vis the claimants besides fastened a liability upon it qua its also indemnifying, the penal interest leviable thereon in accordance with the relevant statute, vis-à-vis the claimants. None of the substantial questions of law, whereon the instant appeal stands admitted, impinge upon the adequacy or the legitimacy of the quantum of compensation determined in the impugned award, hence it is apparently unnecessary to determine the fact whether the quantum of compensation determined in the impugned verdict, suffering from any error of any mis-appreciation or non-appreciation by the learned Commissioner, of any relevant or germane evidence or his committing any error of his mis-applying the relevant statutory provisions. 3. 3. However, the operative part of the impugned verdict, wherein the learned Commissioner has proceeded to, on failure of the insurer “to” within one month since the recording of the verdict, “deposit” the compensation amount, render it liable to defray statutory penalty besides rendered it liable to pay penal interest leviable thereon in accordance with the relevant statute, vis-à-vis claimants, is perse in flagrant transgression, of the relevant provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act. In the learned Commissioner apparently making the aforesaid direction upon the insurer qua its, for the relevant omissions, hence being amenable to pay the statutory penalty besides defray penal interest leviable upon the compensation amount, in consonance with the relevant statutory provisions, vis-à-vis the claimants, he has obviously misread the relevant provisions occurring in Section 4(A) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, provisions whereof stands extracted hereinafter: “4.A. 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 employee, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the employee to make any further claim. (3) Whether 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.” Wherein in Sub-Section 3 thereof, there occurs a categorical enunciation qua, on failure of “the employer” to within its ambit, make defrayment of compensation amount to the employee concerned or to his successors-in-interest, his rendering himself amenable qua the apposite ill-liabilities contemplated in clause(a) and (b) of Sub-Section 3 of Section 4(A) of the Act, being fastenable upon him. 4. Consequently, the relevant aforestated statutory provisions in purported compliance wherewith, the learned Commissioner in the operative part of the award, has fastened liability upon the insurer, qua on its failure, to within one month since the occurrence of the apposite pronouncement, make deposit of the compensation amount, qua hence it indemnifying the claimants’ vis-a-vis, the statutory penalty besides penal interest borne in clause(b) of Sub-Section 3 of Section 4(A) of the Act, is apparently in gross violation of the mandate occurring therein, conspicuously when its mandate stands attracted on the statutory contemplations preceding thereto being infringed by the employer, comprised in his evident failure, to within one month of occurrence of the relevant mishap “make” deposit of compensation, whereupon the employer concerned is solitarily hence rendered amenable to face the might of the enunciations embodied in clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 4(A) of the Act, whereupon reliance thereupon by the learned Commissioner in making the relevant impugned operative part of the verdict, is rendered mis-founded. Concomitantly hence with the learned Commissioner violating the mandate of the aforesaid relevant provisions of Section 4(A) of the Act also renders the operative part of the impugned verdict, wherein he has fastened upon the insurer the liability of its indemnifying vis-à-vis the claimants’ the statutory penalty besides penal interest embodied in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-Section (3) of Section 4(A) of the Act, to hence warrant its being quashed and set aside. 5. Consequently, the award of 9.4.2014, passed by the learned Commissioner, is modified to the extent that its operative potion, whereby on failure of the insurer, to within one month since the pronouncement of the verdict “make deposit” of the compensation amount, it has been directed to indemnify the claimants’, the liabilities enjoined in clause (a) and (b) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 4(A) of the Act, is quashed and set aside. Substantial questions of law No. 1 and 3 are answered accordingly. Substantial question of law No. 2 6. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer, has contended with vigor that the fastening “of” liability of interest levied upon the principal compensation amount, determined under the impugned judgment, “upon” the insurer is not covered by the Insurance policy/cover executed interse the insurer with the employer of the deceased concerned. He submits that a firm, categorical and explicit recital was enjoined to occur in the relevant insurance cover, reflective of the insurer contractually accepting, to indemnify the employer concerned, even the liability of interest levied upon the principal compensation amount, determined under a pronouncement made by the learned Commissioner concerned. He submits that if no firm recital with respect thereto, is embodied in the relevant insurance cover hence the liability fastened upon the insurer to indemnify the insured, the interest levied upon the principal compensation amount, warranting interference, it being beyond the domain of the relevant contract of insurance executed interse the employer of the deceased employee vis-à-vis the insurance company concerned. However, the aforesaid submission is not accepted by this Court, reason whereof is embodied in the trite factum of the insurer accepting the valid execution of the relevant insurance cover, wherein a pronouncement besides a recital occurrs qua its accepting its liability to indemnify the insurer, the compensation amount assessed by the authority concerned while exercising its jurisdiction under the apposite statute, corollary whereof is, hence with the insurer accepting its contractual liability in respect of its indemnifying the insured, the compensation amount determined under the relevant statute besides also, when the apposite statute holds therein a provision with respect to levying of interest on the principal compensation amount, in sequel, the levying of interest, by the adjudicatory authority on the principal compensation amount, when is in consonance with the relevant statute, also when it falls outside the domain of Section 4(A) of the Act in latter provision, whereof the ill-consequences envisaged therein are statutorily encumbered upon the employer concerned “whereas” therein the fastening of liability qua interest levied on the principal compensation amount, is not therein contemplated to be saddled upon the employer, hence the import of the inclusionary indemnifying contractual recital is qua the insurer also accepting its liability to indemnify the insured qua the sums of money levied as interest on the principal compensation amount, besides the apposite verdict, fastening the liability of interest levied on the compensation amount “upon” the insurer being also within the domain of the contract of insurance. Further, in case, the insurer had aspired not to indemnify the employer concerned, sums of money comprising interest levied on the principal compensation amount, it was enjoined to embody in the relevant contract of the insurance, an apposite exclusionary clause. However, a closest reading of the relevant contract of insurance unveils that no specific exclusionary clause is embodied therein, with respect to the insurer exculpating its liability to indemnify, the insurer, the sums of money levied as statutory interest upon the principal compensation amount. In absence of a specific exclusionary clause, in the relevant apposite contract of insurance, it is deemed fit to hold that the liability of interest levied on the principal compensation amount, being hence fastenable upon the insurer especially when on the principal compensation amount, the learned Commissioner is also enjoined to levy thereon interest in consonance with the mandatory statutory provisions. Consequently, substantial question of law No. 2 is answered against the insurer and in favour of the respondents. 7. The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment rendered by the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Solan is modified to the extent that its operative part whereby, on the apposite failure of the insurer to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 12% per annum levied thereon since one month elapsing since the accident, it stood saddled with a liability to indemnify the claimants’ both with respect to penalty and penal interest in consonance with the provisions of clause (a) and (b) of Sub-Section 3 of Section 4(A), is quashed and set aside. CMPMO No. 471 of 2016 The present CMPMO is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty reserved to learned counsel for the petitioner to, in consonance with the verdict pronounced by this Court in FAO No. 284 of 2014, approach the learned Commissioner concerned, for release of compensation amount. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.