JUDGMENT S.G. SHAH, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Lakhani for the appellant as well as Mrs.Yogini V. Parikh, learned advocate for respondent No.2. Rest of the respondent/s though served, remained absent. Perused the record. 2. The appellant herein is insurer of truck No.RJ-27-G-6206. Whereas respondent nos.2 and 3 are respectively its driver and owner. Respondent No.1 is original claimant before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner of Amreli in Workman Non-Fatal Case No.1/2012. Such petition was filed by the claimant under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the W.C. Act" for short) claiming Rs. 4,42,008/- for the injuries sustained by him when he was working on the truck insured by the present appellant for unloading goods from such truck. After allowing both the sides to adduce evidence, Commissioner has by impugned judgment dated 30.5.2004 till award an amount of Rs. 4,48,560/- with 12% interest to be paid by the owner and insurer jointly and severally. The Commissioner has also awarded 25% amount of compensation as penalty which is to be paid by the employer - respondent No.3. 3. Being aggrieved by such award, the appellant - insurance company has preferred this appeal contending that when claimant has injured while unloading of marble sheet from the truck, it cannot be said that such risk is covered by the insurance company but a different stand is taken when it is also pleaded in the appeal that no insurance of any workman has been accepted by the insurance company and, thereby, there is no privity of contract between the owner of the truck being employer and the insurance company and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner. It is also contended that a person who was unloading the truck was not employed by the owner. 4. I have perused the impugned judgment which is in detail discussing all the issues; so also R & P. 5. I am surprised to read the memo of appeal and grounds taken therein. However, I do not find any substance in the appeal for the simple reason that in-fact there is no dispute on record with reference to the contract of insurance between the owner of the truck being respondent No.3 herein and the present appellant. At Exh.47, before the Commissioner, a copy of Goods Carrying Public Carriers Package Policy No.41600/31/10/01/0002195 is produced by the opponent. At Exh.47, before the Commissioner, a copy of Goods Carrying Public Carriers Package Policy No.41600/31/10/01/0002195 is produced by the opponent. Perusal of such policy, which is a contract between the respondent No.3 and the appellant, categorically confirms that in addition to basic premium for statutory liability, the appellant - insurance company has accepted additional premium of Rs. 100/- for compulsory personal accident to owner and driver. The insurance company has also accepted additional premium of Rs. 50/- disclosing that it is for liability under the W.C. Act for 2 employees. Therefore, when specific premium is paid and when there is specific disclosure to that effect in the policy document itself and when additional premium of Rs. 50/- is accepted by the insurance company, it is surprising to deal with such appeal wherein appellant has unfortunately came forward with a case that there is no privity of contract. At Exh.44 full copy of policy document is produced by the appellant itself before the Commissioner wherein endorsement IMT 39 categorically confirms that insurance company accept legal liability to persons employed in connection with the operation and / or maintaining and / or loading and / or unloading of Motor Vehicle. When original document is available on record, reproduction of its contents is not much material. Therefore, when insurance company has accepted the liability of person employed even for loading and unloading vehicle by accepting additional premium, there is no reason to interfere with in the impugned award so as to modify it in any manner whatsoever when Commissioner has rightly imposed the liability of penalty only upon owner and not upon the insurance company. So far as interest on amount of compensation is concerned the interest is payable because of non payment of compensation at the relevant time and, therefore, now, it is settled legal position that insurance company cannot escape from its liability to pay interest even under the W.C. Act in absence of any specific condition to that effect in policy. 6. Learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company relied upon following judgments:- (A) In the case of Ved Prakash Garg. V/s. Premi Devi and Others, (1997) AIR SC 3854 & (B) In the case of L.R.Ferro Alloys Ltd. V/s. Mahavir Mahto and Another, (2002) 9 SCC 450 7. 6. Learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company relied upon following judgments:- (A) In the case of Ved Prakash Garg. V/s. Premi Devi and Others, (1997) AIR SC 3854 & (B) In the case of L.R.Ferro Alloys Ltd. V/s. Mahavir Mahto and Another, (2002) 9 SCC 450 7. The sum and substance of both the above decisions is to the effect that so far penalty amount is concerned, it cannot be said that it is automatically arising from the main liability incurred by the insured under the Workmen Compensation Act. Whereas with reference to liability of Insurance Company, it is categorically held that so far as amount of penalty imposed on the insured employer under contingencies contemplated by Section 4 - A (3) (b) of the Workmen Compensation Act at the relevant time is concerned as that is on account of personal fault of the insured and not backed up by any justifiable cause, the insurance company cannot be made liable to reimburse that part of award that is amount of penalty imposed on the employer. It is clarified that such liability is to be bound by the employer because of his own fault and negligence and thereby, employer has to be entire burden of the amount of penalty with the interest thereon, if imposed by the Commissioner. Such fact is followed in the later judgment in the year 2002. 8. As against that learned advocate for the respondent is relying upon the following decisions:- (A) In the case of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Siby George and Ors., (2012) 12 SCC 540 & (B) In the case of Jaya Biswal and Others V/s. Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and another, (2016) AIR SC 956. 9. Both these judgments are mainly relying upon the decision in the case of Pratap Narain Singh V/s. Shrinivas Sabata, (1976) AIR SC 222 and Kerala State Electricity Board V/s. Valsala K., (1999) AIR SC 3502. 10. Perusal of such judgments makes it clear that though the decision in the Pratap Narain Singh and Valsala are by the larger bench and though, as observed in the case of Siby George , it overrules in the decision, in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited V/s. Mohd. 10. Perusal of such judgments makes it clear that though the decision in the Pratap Narain Singh and Valsala are by the larger bench and though, as observed in the case of Siby George , it overrules in the decision, in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited V/s. Mohd. Nasir and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 280 and National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Mubasir Ahmed and Anr., (2007) 2 SCC 349 , practically, the judgment by the larger benches are dealing with the liability of the employer only and not insurance company. Thereby, there is distinguishable facts and circumstances, in as much as, liability of the insurance company like present appellant is solely based upon the contract of insurance between the insured and insurer and it is not based upon the statutory liability imposed upon the employer under the Act. This is what preciously held and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision relied upon and referred by the appellant i.e. Ved Prakash and Mahavir . Therefore, so far as amount of penalty imposed upon the employer by the Commissioner under the Act is concerned, such penalty is solely because of the fact that employer has failed to deposit the amount of compensation in prescribed period of time before the Commissioner and therefore, Commissioner is entitled and empowered to impose penalty upon the employer. 11. However, liability of the Insurance Company is to reimburse employer for his liability of compensation and thereby, in absence of specific contract to that effect, when penalty is imposed because of non depositing the amount of compensation in time by the employer, such liability cannot be imposed upon Insurance Company as held in the case of Ved Prakash and Mahavir. However, so far as interest of principle amount of compensation is concerned, in all above referred decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has confirmed that insurance company has to pay interest upon their amount of compensation but neither penalty nor interest of such penalty. 12. Therefore, there is no substance in the appeal and hence, the same stands dismissed. Hence, the appeal is disposed of in above terms. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court at the earliest.