JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, appellant has challenged the award passed by learned Commissioner under Employee’s Compensation Act, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in case No. 35/2011 dated 30.10.2012, vide which learned Commissioner has granted the following relief in favour of the petitioner therein:- “Award amount in this case has not been deposited. If the award amount is not deposited within 30 days from the date of passing of this award by the respondents then respondents shall be liable to deposit 50% of the amount by way of a penalty. The respondents shall be liable to pay the award amount with interest @ 12% simple per annum from the date of passing of this award till the realisation of the entire amount. Copy of this order be also given to the respondent immediately. File, after due completion be consigned to Record Room.” 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned award as also the records of the case. 3. This appeal was admitted on 13.08.2013 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether in view of the exclusion clause with regard to interest and penalty contained in schedule Ex. RW-1/B, the claimant is entitled to interest and penalty as awarded by the Commissioner Employee’s Compensation, Chamba, H.P. ?” 4. The crux of the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the exclusion clause with regard to interest and penalty contained in schedule Ext. RW1/B, learned Commissioner has erred in directing that both the respondents before it which includes the present appellant, were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner before it which also included levy of interest as also penalty. 5. A perusal of Ext. RW1/B which is copy of Workmen’s Compensation Insurance schedule so entered into between the present appellant and present respondent No. 2 demonstrates that it was mentioned in the said document that any interest and/or penalty as per Workmen’s Compensation Act are excluded from the scope of the policy. 6. The factum of the said Insurance document having been entered into between the appellant and respondent No. 2 has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent No. 2. The factum of the above mentioned condition being a part of the Insurance has also not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 7. 6. The factum of the said Insurance document having been entered into between the appellant and respondent No. 2 has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent No. 2. The factum of the above mentioned condition being a part of the Insurance has also not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 7. An Insurance Policy per se is an agreement which is entered into between insurer and insured whereby the insurer undertakes to indemnify certain liabilities which may be fastened upon the insured in lieu of consideration termed as premium, paid by the insured to the insurer. Insurer undertakes and is bound to indemnify the insured in terms of the policy. 8. The risk covered by an Insurance Policy is best deciphered from the contents of the same. 9. In the present case, there was an Insurance carried out by the present appellant with regard to skilled labour 07 in number and unskilled labour 11 in number for respondent No. 2. This was done on the payment of a premium. The Insurance Policy contains two special conditions which read as under:- “Special Conditions: 1. Any Interest and/or penalty as per W.C. Act are excluded from the scope of this Policy. 2. The Insured’s will only reimburse the amount of W.C. liability to the Insured subject to the terms and conditions of the W.C. Policy as per tariff. In witness whereof the undersigned acting on behalf and under the Authority of the Company that hereunder set his hand at MUMBAI on 14TH March, 2008.” 10. In view of the fact that there was an exclusion clause in the Insurance Policy which protected the insurer from payment of interest/penalty as per the Workmen’s Compensation Act excluding the same from the scope of the policy. Learned Commissioner could not have had affixed payment of the interest and penalty over the insurer i.e. present appellant as the same if payable was to be paid only by the employer in terms of the Insurance Policy. 11. Findings to the contrary returned by learned Commissioner are perverse. In fact, this perversity is a result of misreading of the relevant clauses of the Insurance Policy which has resulted in injustice to the present appellant. To this extent, the award passed by learned Commissioner is bad in law and is liable to be modified/set aside. 12. 11. Findings to the contrary returned by learned Commissioner are perverse. In fact, this perversity is a result of misreading of the relevant clauses of the Insurance Policy which has resulted in injustice to the present appellant. To this extent, the award passed by learned Commissioner is bad in law and is liable to be modified/set aside. 12. In view of above discussion, this appeal is allowed to the extent that award passed by learned Commissioner is modified by holding that present appellant shall not be liable to pay to the petitioner before learned Commissioner, the interest as also penalty. Except this modification, the award passed by learned Commissioner is upheld. Substantial question of law stands answered accordingly. Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, also stands disposed of.