JUDGMENT DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.11.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 515 of 1994, by which the part of the award holding insurance company liable to pay the amount as awarded has been set aside and the claim case has been sent back on remand for the limited purpose of finding out whether the deceased-driver had a valid driving licence on the material date with the specific direction that if the Commissioner found that the deceased had a valid driving licence the awarded amount, including the penalty and interest, would be payable by the insurance company, and that if the respondents failed to satisfy the Commissioner regarding existence of a valid driving licence, the awarded amount, including the penalty and interest, would be payable by respondent no.2, the owner of the vehicle. It has been further directed that the Commissioner would make the determination and fix the liability as directed within a period of three months from the date of arrival of records and so far as other findings are concerned, the same have been affirmed and accordingly the award has been set aside to the extent indicated and the appeal has been allowed in part. 2. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that respondent no.1, as the widow of the deceased Judhistir Moharana, filed W.C. Case No. 44 of 1993 under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Jeypore, Koraput for grant of compensation, as her deceased husband, while discharging his duty as driver in Truck No.OSG 8582 belonging to respondent no.2, died in a road accident. The said claim was resisted by the appellant insurance company, which was impleaded as opposite party no.2 before the Commissioner along with the owner of the vehicle-respondent no.2. After due adjudication, vide judgment dated 16.06.1994, the Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.83,192/- against the appellant with the direction to pay the same within one month, in default to pay penalty of 30% and interest @ 6% per annum over and above the determined compensation. After due adjudication, vide judgment dated 16.06.1994, the Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.83,192/- against the appellant with the direction to pay the same within one month, in default to pay penalty of 30% and interest @ 6% per annum over and above the determined compensation. Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 16.06.1994, the appellant filed M.A. No. 515 of 1994 before this Court on the grounds that the appellant insurance company was not liable to pay penalty and interest for delayed/default deposit of the compensation amount determined by the Commissioner, and that the driving licence of the deceased driver was not proved to attract the liability of the insurance company. After due adjudication, the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal in part with the following direction:- “22. The part of the award holding Insurance Company liable to pay the amount as awarded is set aside and the claim case is sent back on remand for the limited purpose of finding out whether the deceased-driver had a valid driving licence on the material date. If the Commissioner finds that the deceased had a valid driving licence the awarded amount including the penalty and interest will be payable by the Insurance Company. If the respondents fail to satisfy the Commissioner regarding existence of a valid driving licence, the awarded amount including the penalty and interest will be payable by the respondent no.2, the owner of the vehicle. The ommissioner will make the determination and fix the liability as directed within a period of three months from the date of arrival of records. Other findings are affirmed. 23. The award is set aside to the extent indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part.” 3. Mr. M. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the insurance company is not liable to pay any penalty, as directed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and confirmed by the learned Single Judge for delayed payment of the awarded amount. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Biswanath Barman, 1997 ACJ 78. 4. After the appeal was admitted, notice on the question hearing was issued to the respondents, pursuant to which though respondent no.1 entered appearance, none has entered appearance on behalf of respondent no.2 despite valid service. Ltd. v. Biswanath Barman, 1997 ACJ 78. 4. After the appeal was admitted, notice on the question hearing was issued to the respondents, pursuant to which though respondent no.1 entered appearance, none has entered appearance on behalf of respondent no.2 despite valid service. Since it is an old case of the year 1997 and in the meantime 21 years have elapsed, this Court thinks it proper to dispose of the matter instead of adjourning it any further. 5. The Full Bench of this Court in paragraph 15 of the judgment rendered in Biswanath Barman mentioned supra has categorically observed as follows:- “15. Thus, the above decisions, which have been cited before us in support of the contention that insurance company is liable to pay interest and penalty, are based mainly on insurance policy. We are of the opinion, as stated earlier, that if the insurance police which is governed by the Indian Contract Act does not provide for payment of interest and penalty by the insurance company, the Court cannot take the view that the word ‘employer’ in Section 4-A(3) of the Act would include ‘insurer’ as it would amount to substituting the word ‘employer’ by the word ‘insurer’ in sub-Section (3) of Section 4-A of the Act.” The policy of the insurance company was placed before us for consideration, in which it has been clearly mentioned that interest is payable to the insurer. In terms of the law laid down by this Court in Biswanath Barman (supra), the insurance company is liable to pay the principal amount and interest, but not the penalty. Therefore, in view of the meaning attached to the word ‘employer’ mentioned in Sub-Section (3) of Section 4-A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the insurance company may not be liable for interest and penalty under the said Act, but as per the policy itself, which is governed by the Indian Contract Act, the insurance company is liable to pay interest which forms part of the condition of the policy. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judgment dated 28.11.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in M.A. No. 515 of 1994 directing to pay penalty and interest is modified to the extent that the insurance company is liable to pay interest and not penalty in terms of the policy itself. 7. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judgment dated 28.11.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in M.A. No. 515 of 1994 directing to pay penalty and interest is modified to the extent that the insurance company is liable to pay interest and not penalty in terms of the policy itself. 7. Thus, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is modified only to the extent indicated above and all other directions contained in the same remained unaltered. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Appeal allowed in part.