JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. As a proem, we must say that the point in question in this case certainly wears a very simple look but we believe that it may have some portent and a yet unnoticed legal issue. 2. Formally stated, the singular issue in this case is whether a person engaged as a 'Cleaner' in a contract carriage would obtain insurance coverage on the strength of a policy of insurance intended to protect two employees but not specifically a 'Cleaner'. The issue becomes relevant because the stand of the Insurance Company is that, had the victim been a Driver or a Conductor of the contract carriage, he would have been covered but that since he is designated as a Cleaner, they are not liable to indemnify the owner against a claim made on behalf of such employee, consequent to his unfortunate death during employment. Our conclusions in this judgment are against the contentions of the Insurance Company and we find in favour of the victim and his legal heirs for the reasons that we will record presently. 3. First, we deem it appropriate to record the most unexpendable factual circumstances. 4. The order called into question in this appeal is that of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kozhikode in W.C.C. No.30/2004. 5. The pleadings available or record would show that proceedings were initiated before the Commissioner under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act ('the Act' for brevity) by the respondents claiming compensation for the death of their brother Anil V.C. @ Anil Kumar in a road accident that happened on 16.05.2002, while he was employed by the third respondent in a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-09/H 3172. The pleadings show that Anil unfortunately succumbed to the injuries on 19.05.2002, after treatment for about three days, on account of serious head injury, that he had suffered in the said accident. Respondents 1 and 2 are the sisters of deceased Anil and they claimed Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation, asserting that their brother was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- at the time of his death. 6. The Commissioner initiated a preliminary enquiry and thereafter, notices were issued to the appellant, which is the Insurance Company as well as to the third respondent, who is the owner of the bus. 6. The Commissioner initiated a preliminary enquiry and thereafter, notices were issued to the appellant, which is the Insurance Company as well as to the third respondent, who is the owner of the bus. Since the third respondent did not appear, he was set exparte, whereas the appellant entered appearance through counsel and filed a written statement admitting the insurance coverage. 7. The preliminary defence of the appellant against the claim for compensation was that the coverage under the insurance policy was extended only to two employees and, therefore, that the designation of the deceased will have to be first substantiated by respondents 1 and 2 to assess whether he is a workman coming within the meaning of the Act. To this, respondents 1 and 2 filed a re-joinder stating that the deceased was working as a Checking Inspector and contended that he, therefore, comes within the sweep of the Act. The appellant then filed an additional written statement contending that as per the tariff of the policy, Checking Inspectors will not stand covered and thus denied their liability. It transpires that respondents 1 and 2 filed an additional statement before the Commissioner stating that they have understood from the draft charge sheet in Crime No.42/2002 of Kilimanoor Police Station, which was registered pursuant to the accident, that their deceased brother was employed as a Cleaner at the time of the accident. This caused the appellant to file an additional written statement further stating that as per the policy and Indian Motor Tariff, there is no provision to cover a Cleaner in a contract carriage. 8. On the pleadings thus being completed, the Commissioner allowed the parties to lead evidence and the second respondent was examined as AW1 and Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked on her side. The appellant nor the owner of the vehicle lead any oral evidence but placed on record Exhibits R1 and R2, namely the certificate of insurance and copy of the Indian Motor Tariff respectively. 9. On an evaluation of the materials on record, the Commissioner went on to allow the application and the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.3,98,800/- towards compensation with simple interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident, namely 16.05.2002, along with an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. 9. On an evaluation of the materials on record, the Commissioner went on to allow the application and the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.3,98,800/- towards compensation with simple interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident, namely 16.05.2002, along with an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. The Commissioner directed the appellant to deposit this amount within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, it was further directed that the amounts will be liable to be realised with 30% of such amount towards penalty. 10. The appellant has challenged this order of the Commissioner on various grounds. 11. We have heard Sri. Rajan P. Kaliyath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Rekha, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 12. The memorandum of appeal indicates that following substantial questions of law have been raised by the appellant for consideration of this Court : “(a) Can the major sisters claim dependency compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act? (b) Is not the Commissioner bound to consider and decide the issue of dependency in this case before fixing the liability to pay the compensation? (c) Is the liability of cleaner statutorily covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act? (d) Can the liability to pay the interest be from the date of accident even when the claim is lodged after two years thereafter? (e) Whether the insurer under a motor policy is liable to pay the penalty and whether the imposition of penalty on the insurer in this case legal and proper?” 13. The pleadings in substantiation of the aforesaid substantial questions of law by the appellant are that one of the applicants, namely the first respondent herein, is a married woman and, therefore, cannot be construed to be a dependent of the deceased. They further say that the deceased is only a Cleaner and, therefore, not covered under Exhibit R1 insurance policy. As regards the quantum of compensation and the interest awarded, the contention of the appellant is that the Commissioner was in error in accepting the assertion of respondents 1 and 2 that the deceased was drawing Rs.4,000/- as monthly salary at the time of his death and that award of interest from the date of the accident is in error, since the claim was laid two years thereafter. They finally challenge the imposition of penalty and say that it is now settled law that an insurer cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay penalty. 14. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and we see that the appellant did not really contest the factum of accident or the causes which led to the death of Anil. The primary contention against award of compensation is that the deceased was only a Cleaner. The learned counsel for the appellant, inviting our attention to Exhibit R1 Certificate of Insurance, says that it is clear therefrom that only two paid drivers have been covered as per the premium paid under clause No.19 of the Indian Motor Tariff. The learned counsel for the appellant says that as per the aforementioned endorsement, the Insurance Company has only the legal liability to pay two drivers employed in connection with the operation of a motor vehicle and, therefore, that the death of a Cleaner cannot again make them liable for compensation. 15. We have examined the submissions of the learned counsel with particular reference to the various provisions of the Indian Motor Tariff. As per clause 18 of the Indian Motor Tariff, the legal liability thereunder, if the additional premium had been paid, would be on the death of the Driver and/or Conductor in connection with the operation of the motor vehicle. On the other hand, clause 19 starts by saying that liability of the insurer is limited to paid drivers employed in connection with the operation of the vehicle. However, while making provisions for calculation of premium, clause 19 provides that the premium be calculated and paid at the rate of Rs.15/- for Driver and/or Conductor. It, therefore, becomes obvious that under clause 19 of the Indian Motor Tariff, if premium had been paid for a Conductor, then the liability of the Insurance Company would get crystallised in the case of a Conductor also. We do not require to say anything further because we are aware that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant virtually concedes that had the deceased been a Conductor, then even under Exhibit R1 policy he would have been covered. His defence, however, is that a Cleaner cannot be covered by the said policy and that since deceased Anil is admitted to have been only a Cleaner, the impugned award is unsustainable. 16. His defence, however, is that a Cleaner cannot be covered by the said policy and that since deceased Anil is admitted to have been only a Cleaner, the impugned award is unsustainable. 16. The word 'Conductor' is defined under Section 2(5) of the Act to mean a person engaged in collecting fares from passengers, regulating their entrance into, or exit from, the stage carriage and performing such other functions as may be prescribed. It is thus luculent that the requirement of a Conductor would apply only in the case of a Stage Carriage and not in the case of a Contract Carriage, since in the case of the latter, there is no question of any fare being collected. 17. In other words, the position of a person engaged in a Contract Carriage is different from the duties of a person engaged as a Conductor in a Stage Carriage. 18. In the case of a Contract Carriage, Rule 368 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules come into play. As per this Rule, it is mandatory that every motor vehicle should have at least one Attendant to assist the Driver in the management of the vehicle and to give warning of any traffic approaching from the rear. Even though it is not specifically pleaded either to the affirmative or to the contrary by any of the parties, in the absence of any evidence to show that there was any other employee, other than Anil, apart from the driver, in the bus when it met with an accident, it will be justified to infer that the deceased was functioning as an Attendant in the bus though he was designated as a Cleaner. It is pertinent to note that the post 'Cleaner' is not defined anywhere in the Act or the Rules and therefore, that when such a person accompanies the Driver in the bus, he would have to be construed as an Attendant under the provisions of Rule 368 of the Rules. 19. That being said, the question is whether the Attendant of a Contract Carriage under Rule 368 of the Rules can obtain the insurance coverage under Exhibit R1 policy. It is admitted that two employees are covered and the only contention is that those two have to be either Driver or the Conductor. 19. That being said, the question is whether the Attendant of a Contract Carriage under Rule 368 of the Rules can obtain the insurance coverage under Exhibit R1 policy. It is admitted that two employees are covered and the only contention is that those two have to be either Driver or the Conductor. We are afraid that the contention of the Insurance Company in the facts of this case would become fallacious, since, the vehicle involved is a Contract Carriage, in which a Conductor is not necessary, while presence of the Attendant is mandatory. Viewed from that perspective, it is certain that the Insurance Company would be obliged to honour the compensation for the death of Anil, while in employment in the bus when it met with an accident. We cannot find anything wrong with the views of the Commissioner and we, therefore, deem it appropriate to uphold the same. 20. On the questions as to whether respondents 1 and 2 are dependent sisters and whether the deceased was drawing Rs.4,000/- as monthly wages at the time of his death, it is clear from the records that no contra evidence was let in by the appellant before the Commissioner. It can, therefore, only be presumed that they have admitted these factual assertions of the applicants and therefore, we do not feel it necessary to re-appreciate these issues. This is particularly because, the specific averment in the application before the Commissioner was that the deceased was drawing Rs.4,000/- as monthly wages but the appellant chose not to contest it at all by leading contrary evidence. Further, on the question of dependency of respondents 1 and 2, it is not relevant because even if one of the sisters are not dependent, she being married, the appellant concedes that the other sister is unmarried and hence is certainly dependent on the deceased. These contentions of theirs are, therefore, superfluous and would require no further examination. 21. It thus brings us to the issue as regards the interest granted and the order of penalty in the impugned order. 22. These contentions of theirs are, therefore, superfluous and would require no further examination. 21. It thus brings us to the issue as regards the interest granted and the order of penalty in the impugned order. 22. On the question of penalty, the issue is covered in favour of the Insurance Company on account of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and others (AIR 1977 SC 3854), wherein, the emphatic view of their Lordships was as under : “But so far as the amount of penalty imposed on the insured employer under contingencies contemplated by Section 4A(3)(b) is concerned as that is on account of personal fault of the insured not backed up by any justifiable cause, the insurance company cannot be made liable to reimburse that part of the penalty amount imposed on the employer. The latter because of his own fault and negligence will have to bear the entire burden of the said penalty amount with proportionate interest thereon if imposed by the Workmen's Commissioner.” 23. It is, therefore, now needless to say anything further on this issue, since the order of the Commissioner imposing penalty against the Insurance Company cannot be sustained. 24. As regards the question of interest is concerned, we find that the Commissioner has acted without fault in granting interest from the date of accident since both the claimants are women, one of them being concededly dependent on the deceased and the mere factum of the claim having been made a year and half later would not, in our view, justify the denial of interest from the date of accident. We, therefore, approve the conclusions of the Commissioner in the order impugned with respect to the interest awarded. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part confirming the award made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kozhikode in W.C.C.No.30/2004, except to the extent of the direction to the Insurance Company to pay 30% of the amount awarded as penalty. Consequently, respondents 1 and 2 will be entitled to an amount of Rs.3,98,800/-, as awarded by the Commissioner, along with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident, i.e. 16.05.2002 and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. Consequently, respondents 1 and 2 will be entitled to an amount of Rs.3,98,800/-, as awarded by the Commissioner, along with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident, i.e. 16.05.2002 and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. Since we have partly allowed this appeal and taking into account the rather peculiar facts involved, we feel it apposite not to make any order as to costs, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs in this appeal.