JUDGMENT S G Shah, J. Heard learned advocate Mr.R.P.Raval for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.M.T.N.Hakim for respondent No.1 and 2 whereas learned advocate Mr.J.K.Saiyad for respondent No.3. Perused the record. 2. Appellant herein is original opponent No.2 before the labour Court - Ex-official commissioner in the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 in Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Application No.7 of 2013. Such application was preferred by respondent No.1 and 2 herein against employer of the victim employee and the appellant insurance company for the accidental death of Samadhan Santosh Vanarse. After allowing all the parties to produce their evidence, commissioner has by award and judgment dated 28.08.2014 awarded the amount of Rs. 6,53,252/- with 12 % interest to be paid by both, the employer and its insured being appellant herein. The commissioner has also awarded Rs. 1,30,650/- as 20% of the amount of compensation towards penalty to be paid only by the employer whereby insurance company was not held liable to pay the amount of penalty. Therefore, being aggrieved by the award regarding payment of interest at the rate of 12% on the amount of compensation awarded by the commissioner, the insurance company has preferred this appeal. I have perused the record as well as record and proceedings before the commissioner. 3. It is undisputed fact that deceased victim - Samadhan Santosh Vanarse was serving with opponent/respondent No.1 and that such employer of the deceased victim has insured himself against such liability of payment of compensation to his employees with the appellant insurance company. It is also undisputed fact that on 26.11.2012 when deceased victim was on his duty, he met with an accident wherein he received fatal injuries. Therefore, respondent No.1 and 2 being original claimants and parents of the deceased victim had preferred claim under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and claimed Rs. 8,30,137/- contending that they are legal representatives and dependent of the deceased victim and that deceased was getting Rs. 7500/- per month and therefore, considering formula prescribed under the act, they are entitled to such amount of compensation. After allowing both the sides to adduce the evidence, the tribunal has considered that income of the deceased victim was not Rs. 7500/- but it was only Rs. 5940/-. 7500/- per month and therefore, considering formula prescribed under the act, they are entitled to such amount of compensation. After allowing both the sides to adduce the evidence, the tribunal has considered that income of the deceased victim was not Rs. 7500/- but it was only Rs. 5940/-. Considering the fact that by entering into the contract of insurance as employer has disclosed, the estimated total wages or salaries and other earnings of all 20 skilled personnel, employed by him is Rs. 12,49,248/- i.e. Rs. 5205/- per month for each of them. Therefore, when there is categorical disclosure by the employer regarding salary being paid by him to his employees, it becomes clear that there may not be income of Rs. 7500/- per month i.e. Rs. 250/- per day as claimed by the claimant. Whereas, commissioner has considered the minimum wages that can be paid to such skilled persons at the relevant time which was Rs. 198/- per day and therefore, considering Rs. 5940/- as monthly earnings of the deceased victim at the relevant time. It is practically match the calculation of Rs. 250/- per day reducing couple of days as weekly off. and therefore, though premium was paid at the rate of Rs. 5205/- and therefore, commissioner has awarded reasonable amount of compensation. 4. However, so far as liability of interest is concerned, insurance company is relying upon certain decisions, whereas record shows that in fact, immediately after the incident, the employer has conveyed the insurance company about incident on 26.11.2012 and also paid Rs. 50,000/- as minimum help to the claimants. Insurance policy is also on record which confirms, as subject to the coverage of employees that it should be as per the Indian Employees compensation Act, 1323 (original Workmen Compensation Act, 1923). 5. Therefore, now, it becomes clear that policy issued by the appellant is thus covering the liability under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, also categorically confirms that insurance company would be liable as per the statute and thereby, though it is contended that the liability to indemnify the owner is not statutory in this policy but it is contractual liability, the condition herein referred above makes it clear that insurance company accepts the liability of the employer that may arise under statute. It is quite clear and certain that liability to pay interest is certainly statutory liability of the employer and therefore, it can not be said that insurance company has not accepted the risk to pay amount of interest also when employer is duty bound to pay interest on amount of compensation as provided under Section 4(A). However, unfortunately, there was some misconception in some of the judgments at some point of time and more particularly, because of the risk with liability of insurance company in such cases are arising in two different type of policies. One is under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 wherein insurance policy is statutory policy and second under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 wherein insurance policy purely contractual in nature. However, in the present case, when insurance company confirms that insurance company would indemnify the employer as per the provisions of the act. Whereby, when policy is different than policy in some other case, wherein there is specific condition and clause excluding the liability of the insurance company to pay interest in such policy for the workman, insurance company can not be exonerated from making payment of interest to the workers in such cases. 6. Learned advocate has vehemently argued that there are such decisions that even Court has considered such decisions exonerated in given cases. For the purpose, learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon: (1) New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya in jurgment dated 24.04.2006 in Civil Application No. 2333 of 2006 by Supreme Court on India. (paragraph No. 19 to 21) (2) P.J.Narayan Vs. Union of India (UOI) and ors., (2006) 5 SCC 200 . (3) Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Ashok and Ors. In judgment dated 03.09.2015 in First Appeal No.75 of 2005 by the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Branch)(Single Judge) (Paragraph 10) (4) IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Chacko and Ors., (2016) LLR 288, judgment dated 31.08.2015 in MFA No. 115 of 2013 by High Court of Kerala. (Single Judge) (paragraph No.4) (5) New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hiralal Gomaji Moriya(Regar) and Ors., judgment dated 23.03.2011 in First Apeal No. 5145 of 2007 by High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. (paragraph Nos.9 to 13) (6) IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shobhaben W/o Arjun Mahajan, judgment dated 18.03.2016 in First Appeal No. 2054 of 2015 by High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. Hiralal Gomaji Moriya(Regar) and Ors., judgment dated 23.03.2011 in First Apeal No. 5145 of 2007 by High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. (paragraph Nos.9 to 13) (6) IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shobhaben W/o Arjun Mahajan, judgment dated 18.03.2016 in First Appeal No. 2054 of 2015 by High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. (paragraph Nos.5,6 and 7) 7. However, the fact remains that in all such cases, the liability of the insurance company is contractual in the case under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and statutory if injuries are by vehicular accident. It is undisputed fact that in some of the policies for the liability under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 insurance company has accepted the liability excluding the liability for payment of interest and penalty. Whereas in the present case policy which produced on record makes it clear that insurance company has accepted the liability that may be arise under statute. Thereby, when statute has imposed liability of the interest, then, insurance company can not be exonerated from payment of interest. 8. Whereas, reference to some other judgments of different Courts have been taken care of in the judgment dated 22.06.2018 by this Court in First appeal No.1315 of 2006 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meraman Khengar Rajput, making it clear that in some of the judgments, some of the Courts have failed to appreciate the judgment of larger bench of the Supreme Court of India and therefore, if at the relevant point of time, only particular judgment is relied upon to exonerate insurance company form liability of payment of interest and penalty. Thus, those judgment may not help appellant to exonerate itself from liability to pay interest. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any substance in the appeal so as to interfere in the main award, thereby, appeal stands dismissed. 10. Record and proceedings to be sent back forthwith.