JUDGMENT : KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. 1. Heard Sri. Shreesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Sri. A.K. Verma, Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act 1923/Assistant Labour Commsioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur on 15.7.2020 has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,24,000/- and has considered the application as if it is under the Motor Vehicles Act. He has passed an order which is conditional in nature that if within 30 days the Insurance Company does not deposit amount, they shall deposit the amount with interest at the rate of 7 per cent. 3. Fact that the appellant-claimant was an employee is not in dispute; vehicle caused him injuries which can be said to be arising out of his employment is not in dispute and; the Insurance Company having insured the vehicle with the workmen is not in dispute, hence, no facts are mentioned except that the accident occurred on 25.10.2017 and no technical pleas are raised. Compensation awarded is not in challenge. 4. The two questions of law which arise for consideration are-firstly that can Assistant Labour Commissioner award interest less than what the statute has fixed, namely, 12% under the provisions 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)? A similar issue has arisen before this Court where the Court has deprecated the practice of grant of interest less than what is specific under the statute. The reason being the word use ‘shall’ which has been interpreted by the Courts time and again. The second question arises when the interest becomes due and from whom? Of course, as per the Judgment, it is for the Insurance Company to pay the interest as no other technical defects, as can be raised under the Employees Compensation Act, are raised. 5. I am pained to pen down that the Workmen's Commissioner in Uttar Pradesh are time and again to be conveyed that they are supposed to follow the statute under which they are functioning. 5. I am pained to pen down that the Workmen's Commissioner in Uttar Pradesh are time and again to be conveyed that they are supposed to follow the statute under which they are functioning. I am supported in my view by the Judgments rendered by Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company vs. Siby George and Others, 2012 (4) TAC 4 (SC), Civil Appeal No. 7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 and Civil Appeal No. 10018 of 2017, Smt. Surekha and Others vs. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. decided on 3.8.2017 which holds that Insurance Company has to be made liable and further the relevant date from when the interest would be payable is decided therein, namely, one month of the date, it accrues. 6. Learned counsel Sri. S.K. Mehrotra tried to point out that the Judgment is just and proper, however, I am not convinced as the statute demands that the claimant becomes entitled to interest within a period of one month from the date the amount accrues to him. In our case, the amount accrued to him one month after the accident took place, i.e. 25.10.2017 and the owner Vimal Kumar Verma, who was insured by the respondent no. 2 did not make the payment. 7. In view of the aforesaid, Judgment and award impugned herein is modified. If the Insurance Company has not yet deposited the amount, it shall deposit the amount with interest at the rate of 12% from one month from the date of accident, i.e. 25.11.2017. 8. It goes without saying that once the amount is deposited, the Tribunal shall disburse the same and the Insurance company shall not deduct TDS as against the settled principles of law. 9. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. 10. This Court is thankful to Sri. S.K. Mehrotra for ably assisting this Court and Sri. Vidya Kant Shukla, for acting as Amicus Curiae for pointing out the Judgments on the matter.