JUDGMENT Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The Insurance Company is in appeal, challenging the order of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT and Commissioner for employees Compensation, Belagavi, dated 25.04.2015 in ECA No.253/2014. 2. Respondent No.3 is a construction firm which acquires the lands to set up various residential schemes, I.T. Parks, Malls, Shopping Complex, etc., and other works. The respondent No.3 has engaged the service of respondent No.2 for the purpose of carrying out RCC contract in respect of residential scheme known as 'Kattepuram' situate at R.S.No.48/1/1 and 48/1/2, Navi Sangavi, Pimpale Gurav, Kattepuram Chowk, K6 Building, Pune, wherein respondent No.2 had engaged the service of the son of respondent No.1 by name Balaram as a workman. 3. On 17.08.2010 at about 10.00 a.m., the workman Balaram who was working as a carpenter, was doing his work at 10th floor under the instruction of respondent No.2. While he was working, he lost his balance and fell from the building, sustaining a head injury, was treated at YCMH Hospital, Pune, however, he succumbed to the injuries. 4. The Commissioner after considering the matter has awarded a sum of Rs.8,40,162/- with 12% interest per annum from expiry of one month from the date of accident till realization holding respondent Nos.2 and 3 as also the Appellant liable to pay the compensation. The Appellant being the Insurer was directed to make payment of the entire compensation awarded. 5. It is aggrieved by the same; the Insurance Company is in appeal before this Court contending that imposition of the liability on the appellant/Insurance Company is not correct, the entire liability ought to have been imposed on the respondent No.2- contractor, and among other things, Sri. Arani, learned counsel for the Appellant would submit as under: 5.1. The appellant Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of any compensation on account of the fact that there was no notice which had been issued in respect of the occurrence of the accident as also the death of the said workman Balaram in terms of Section 10(1) of the E.C.Act. 5.2. That the workman himself was responsible for the accident and the subsequent death on account of the fact that the workman was not diligent in carrying out his work, that is why he lost balance. 5.3. 5.2. That the workman himself was responsible for the accident and the subsequent death on account of the fact that the workman was not diligent in carrying out his work, that is why he lost balance. 5.3. It is further alleged that the workman was not wearing safety equipments provided by the respondent No.2/contractor and it is on this account that the workman himself being responsible for the accident and his subsequent death, it is neither the respondent No.1 nor vicariously the appellant/Insurance Company would be responsible. 5.4. That the Insurance policy which had been taken out by the respondent No.3 was for 13 workmen for a sum of Rs.5,16,000/-. Thus the salary which can be attributed to each of the workman, even if they were stated to be drawing equal salary is Rs.3,589/- per month, thus there is a limitation of liability in terms of the insurance policy insofar as the insurance company is concerned that it would be liable to only make payment of compensation on a monthly income taken as Rs.3,589/-. The insurance company is not liable to make payment of any amounts over and above the said amount. 5.5. Lastly, it is contended that in terms of the conditions of the policy taken out by the respondent No.2 with the Appellant, the appellant Insurance company is not liable to make payment of any interest or penalty. Therefore, the interest if any awarded by the Commissioner is to the account of the Insured - respondent No.2/Contractor. 6. Sri. Gurukumar V.A., learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant who is the father of the deceased workman submits that 6.1. the notice could not be issued in time by the claimant for the reasons that the claimant is a resident of Belgaum and the claimant being a aged father of the deceased young son was in shock and not being knowledgeable about the legal formalities, he could not issue notice, if at it was for the respondent No.2/contractor or the respondent No.3/Principal employer to have issued the notice, the claimant cannot be held responsible for the same resulting in denial of the claim of the benefits of the compensation receivable by the claimant. 6.2. 6.2. in terms of the notification dated 31.05.2010, issued under Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, the monthly wages which are required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of compensation is Rs.8,000/- and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot restrict the wages to what is supposedly attributed for the insurance policy and as such the order of Workmen's' Commissioner is proper and correct. 6.3. As regards the payment of interest and penalty Sri. Gurukumar V.A., learned counsel would submit that if there is any delay in payment and if there is any dispute in the payment or the quantum thereof and on this account if there is any interest or penalty which is required to be paid, the Insurance company would have to make payment of the same as long as the claimant has not contributed to the delay. 7. The matter today being set out for admission and relating to the employees compensation, the substantial questions of law need to be formulated. The same are as under (a) Whether the issuing of a notice under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act is mandatory ? (b) Whether an insurance company can limit its liability under the policy issued by it? (c) Whether an Insurance Company would be liable to make payment of interest and penalty in a claim by employee under the Employees Compensation Act, if the insurance policy were to contain a clause otherwise? 8. The accident had occurred on 17.01.2010. The policy in question was issued on 02.09.2009. The claim before the Commissioner was made in the year 2014. No notice had been issued prior to the filing of the claim before the Commissioner a claim was directly filed before the Commissioner in the year 2014. These are the undisputed facts. 9. The Tribunal while appreciating the disputed facts has held that on 17.08.2010, the accident occurred while the deceased Balaram was carrying out centering work and he lost his balance. It is further stated that the rope and belt which had been supplied were of poor quality, the police had investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the partner of respondent No.2 firm considering that the safety equipment which have been provided were not proper and they were responsible for the death of the deceased workman Balaram. It is in this factual background, the matters have to be considered. It is in this factual background, the matters have to be considered. 10. Answer to substantial question No.1: Whether the issuing of a notice under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act is mandatory? 10.1. Admittedly the accident occurred in Pune, so also the death of the deceased occurred in Pune. The father of the deceased workman was residing in Belgaum who is stated to be illiterate and not knowledgeable about the legal matters. In this background, it would not be proper for this Court to expect the father of the deceased son to have issued a notice within a time period under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, more particularly, when the said father is stated to have no knowledge about the applicability of the same. 10.2. I am in agreement of the submission made by Sri. Gurukumar V.A., for the respondent No.1 that it was the duty and obligation either on the part of the respondent No.2 or 3 to have informed and or notify the appellant insurance company about the occurrence of the accident, even though the claim might have been filed subsequently by respondent No.1. 10.3. The denial of liability on the part of either the Appellant or the respondent No.2 and 3 on the mere ground that the father of the deceased had not issued notice would amount to a traversity of justice. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that in an accident which occurs the primary responsibility of the issuance of the notice of the occurrence of the accident and the incident thereto would be that of the insured and insured has to notify the Insurer of the same. 10.4. Though the accident had occurred in the year 2010, the claim petition was filed in the year 2014 i.e. much beyond the period of two years as contemplated under Section 10(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. I am of the considered opinion that this delay does not negate the rights of the parties, more particularly when the Employees Compensation Act is one which is in beneficial in nature, enacted in order to provide benefits to a workman or his family. The benefit provided under the said Act cannot be snatched away from the claimant on the basis of such technicalities. 11. Answer to substantial question No.2: Whether an insurance company can limit its liability under the policy issued by it? 11.1. The benefit provided under the said Act cannot be snatched away from the claimant on the basis of such technicalities. 11. Answer to substantial question No.2: Whether an insurance company can limit its liability under the policy issued by it? 11.1. The insurance policy was issued in the year 2009, the accident occurred on 17.08.2010, the notification came to be issued by the Central Government under Section 4(1)(B) enhancing the monthly wages for the purpose of consideration of the application under Section 4 to Rs.8,000/- on 31.05.2010. 11.2. It would also be relevant to take note of the fact that prior to the said notification, the monthly wages for compensation was required to be taken at Rs.4,000/-. 11.3. If the matter is considered in this background, the insurance policy which had been taken out in the year 2009 for a sum of Rs.5,65,000/- for 13 people would attribute the monthly wage of Rs.3,589/- per workman which would have been more or less in consonance with the earlier notification issued under Section 4. 11.4. The notification dated 31.05.2010 has been issued by the Central Government mandating the consideration of the wages per month of a workman claiming compensation under the Employees Compensation Act to be Rs.8,000/-. 11.5. This being a statutory mandate, I am of the considered opinion that the Insurer cannot limit its liability on the ground that what has been paid as premium is only for a sum of Rs.3,589/- monthly wages. As soon as the notification dated 31.05.2010 was issued it would have been for the insurance company to take up this matter with the insured and demanded additional premium. At most the issue would be as regards payment of additional premium and not limitation of liability. In view of the above consideration, I answer point No.2 by holding that by way of a clause in the insurance policy and or on the basis of the premium paid on a insurance policy insofar as the claim under Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act is concerned, the liability cannot be restricted on the basis of the premium paid, but the monthly wages would have to be considered in terms of the notification dated 31.05.2010 issued under Section 4(1)(B) of the Employees Compensation Act. 11.6. 11.6. However, considering the fact that the respondent No.2 has also not notified or came forward to inform the insurance company of the occurrence of the accident and or the death of the workman Balaram as also subsequent to the issuance of the aforesaid notification not having come forward to make payment of the additional premium, I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be served if the appellant/insurance company is directed to make payment of the entire compensation, but recover the compensation attributed to the insurance company over the monthly wages of Rs.3,589/- from respondent No.2 contractor. 11.7. Respondent Nos.2 is directed to make payment of the amounts falling to its share to the Appellant Insurance Company within a period of six months from the date of this order. 12. Answer to substantial question No.3: Whether an in Insurance Company would be liable to make payment of interest and penalty in a claim by employee under Employees Compensation Act, if the insurance policy were to contain a clause otherwise? 12.1. As regards the limitation of liability canvassed relating to the payment of interest and penalty, I am of the considered opinion that such a limitation cannot be imposed by way of a contract when there is a delay in payment of the compensation more particularly when the said delay could be attributed to the insurance company there would be a requirement of making payment of interest on the said delay. However, taking into consideration in this particular case that the accident having occurred on 17.08.2010 and the Commissioner has directed the payment of interest at the rate of 12% from one month after the accident, whereas the claim itself was filed in the year 2014, the claimant would not be entitled for interest until the date of filing of the claim petition, the interest if any would accrue from the date of which the claim petition was filed, since the claim was contested by the insurance company, the insurance company cannot try to escape from its liability from payment of interest post the filing of the claim petition. 13. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal as filed by the Insurance Company does not make any ground as such the appeal stands dismissed. 14. The amount in deposit if any shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.