JUDGMENT : The appeals in M.F.A.Nos.5322/2011 and 3254/2011 are filed by the first and second respondent, who are the insured and the Insurance Company respectively, challenging the judgment and award passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s compensation, Sub-Division-2, at Chickmagalur (‘the Workmen’s Commissioner’ for short) dated 28.10.2010 vide No.WCA/FC/40/2007, questioning the apportionment and the liability. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Workmen’s Commissioner to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the claimant is the wife of the deceased Swamy Gowda, who was working for the first respondent as an Agricultural Labour/Coolie. The policy was taken by the insured with respondent No.2-Insurance Company. The claim of the claimant before the Workmen’s Commissioner is that on 12.07.2006, her husband, while proceeding to the work of respondent No.1 in Coffee Plantation, fell down in the wet land which belongs to the insured and died on account of the said incident. It is also her claim that he was earning Rs.150/-per day and he was working with respondent No.1 from the last 15 years and on account of death of her husband, she has lost an earning member of her family. Hence, she is entitled for the compensation. 3. The insured appeared and filed the objections statement contending that the incident was taken place in the early morning and not during the course of the employment or arising out of the employment. He was paying wages of Rs.70/-per day to the deceased and not Rs.150/-as claimed by the claimant. It is contended that the policy was taken from respondent No.2 and the said policy was in existence at the time of the accident. Hence, in case of any liability, the same is payable by respondent No.2. 4. The Insurance Company also appeared and filed the objections statement contending that the death of a worker is not during the course of employment or arising out of the said employment. In the claim petition, it is contended that on account of heavy rain and mud, he slipped and fell down from the ridge of the wet land and died. The statement made by R.W.1 clearly establishes that there was neither any incident nor accidental injury during the course of and arising out of the employment. In the claim petition, it is contended that on account of heavy rain and mud, he slipped and fell down from the ridge of the wet land and died. The statement made by R.W.1 clearly establishes that there was neither any incident nor accidental injury during the course of and arising out of the employment. Hence, the death of Swamy Gowda is no way connected with his employment. Under these circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. Without prejudice to the said contention, it is also contended that the policy was in force and the same is subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay interest or penalty that may be levied in the case on hand and the same are specifically excluded under the policy. However, admitted that the policy obtained by respondent No.1 is a Workers’ Compensation policy and payment of premium was collected in respect of 23 permanent workers and 25 casual workers and the total wages per annum is Rs.8,60,000/-. If the award of compensation is based on wages, actually earned by the deceased, which are more than wages shown as payable for the purpose of insurance, the liability of the Insurance Company is only to the extent of premium received by it and for the amount exceeding, to be borne by employer himself as held by this Court in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bengaluru v. Gangavva and Another reported in 1998 (6) KAR LJ 433. 6. The Insurance Company denied all other averments with regard to his income and also the age. Based on the pleadings, the Workmen’s Commissioner has framed the issues. The claimant, in order to substantiate her claim, examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 and P2. On the other hand, respondent No.1-insured also examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked the document at Ex.R2. The Insurance Company also examined one witness as R.W.2 and got marked the policy at Ex.R1. The Workmen’s Commissioner, after considering both oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.1,76,328/-and directed to pay the amount with interest from 13.8.2006, within 30 days. The Insurance Company also examined one witness as R.W.2 and got marked the policy at Ex.R1. The Workmen’s Commissioner, after considering both oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.1,76,328/-and directed to pay the amount with interest from 13.8.2006, within 30 days. The respondent No.1 was directed to pay the amount of Rs.75,032/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 13.8.2006 till payment on the entire compensation. Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,01,196/-within 30 days and if fails to pay the amount within the said time, to pay the amount with interest at the rate of 7.5%. Being aggrieved by the said award, these two appeals are filed by both the Insurance Company as well as the insured. 7. Insurance Company mainly urged two grounds in the appeal in M.F.A.No.3254/2011 stating that the accident was taken place on 12.07.2006. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Workmen’s Commissioner erred in coming to the conclusion that the death of Swamy Gowda occurred in the land belongs to the insured. The Commissioner failed to appreciate that even as per the evidence of P.W.1, the death occurred while he was on the way to the estate of respondent No.2 herein and also failed to appreciate that he fell down from the ridge of wet land and died due to heart attack. The Workmen’s Commissioner failed to appreciate that on the date of death, the deceased did not attend the work. Therefore, it cannot be held that the death occurred during the course of employment and arising out of employment. The Workmen’s Commissioner has not discussed the cause of death for heart attack and whether it was related to stress caused because of work and also failed to appreciate that no medical evidence or any other independent evidence was adduced to show that the deceased died due to stress of work. 8. The Insurance Company in the appeal has raised the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the Commissioner erred in holding that the death occurred during the course and out of employment though it was clearly established that the deceased had not reported to duty on that day ? 2. 8. The Insurance Company in the appeal has raised the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the Commissioner erred in holding that the death occurred during the course and out of employment though it was clearly established that the deceased had not reported to duty on that day ? 2. Whether the Commissioner failed to appreciate that the deceased died due to heart attack on the way to the estate and outside the estate limit and suffered heart attack when he slipped down and fell on the wet land and therefore was no evidence to show that he had damaged heart due to stress of work ? 9. Learned counsel in support of his arguments, he would vehemently contend that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the deceased and the employer. Learned counsel would contend that as on the date of incident, the deceased had not attended the work and hence, it cannot be termed as that he died during the course of employment or arising out of the employment. The cause of death is due to heart attack. Learned counsel also would submit that the heart attack was also not in the estate. Hence, the Workmen’s Commissioner committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the death has occurred in the course of employment. Learned counsel also would submit that the very conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner is erroneous and the Commissioner has failed to take note of the fact that he died on account of heart attack and not in the course of employment. 10. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2007) 11 SCC 668 in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali. Referring to this judgment, learned counsel would vehemently contend that the death is due to heart attack and the Apex Court held that factors that need to be established are the pleadings and proof necessary. Only because a person dies of heart attack, the same does not give rise to automatic presumption that the same was caused by way of accident. No legal fiction can be raised therefore and circumstances must be shown to accept that the death caused by reason of cardiac arrest was because of stress and strain of work. Only because a person dies of heart attack, the same does not give rise to automatic presumption that the same was caused by way of accident. No legal fiction can be raised therefore and circumstances must be shown to accept that the death caused by reason of cardiac arrest was because of stress and strain of work. The medical opinion would be relevant and each case has to be considered on its own facts and no hard and fast rule can be laid down therefore, unless evidence is brought on record to establish that death by way of cardiac arrest was because of stress and strain of work, the Commissioner would have no jurisdiction to grant damages. Learned counsel would contend that the casual connection between the injury concerned and accident arising out of or in the course of employment has to be established. Necessity of adducing sufficient evidence to discharge onus to prove that it was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated the injury, is on the workman. 11. Learned counsel also relied upon the another decision reported in 2009 ACJ 721 in the case of Malikrajuna G.Hiremath v. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another. In this case, the Apex Court discussed Section 3(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and Section 147(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with regard to arising out of and in the course of employment. The driver took passengers in his truck to a temple as per directions of his employers – On reaching the temple driver went to a pond for taking bath where he slipped and drowned – Whether the death arose out of and in the course of employment and owner and Insurance Company of the vehicle are liable – Held, that the they are not liable on the ground that there was no causal connection between death of driver and his employment. 12. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 1998 (6) KAR. 12. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 1998 (6) KAR. L.J. 433 in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Gangavva and Another, wherein this Court held that the employer’s liability to pay as per Commissioner’s award and the same varied between wages actually drawn by deceased employee and wages shown by employer as payable to employee for purpose of payment of insurance premia where Commissioner’s award of compensation is based on wages actually earned by deceased, which are more than wages shown as payable for purpose of insurance. The liability of Insurance Company is only to extent of premia received by it, and amount exceeding Insurance Company’s liability is to be borne by employer himself. 13. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision reported in 2006 ACJ 1699 in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hashadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya and Another, wherein the Apex Court regarding the interest is concerned held that the liability of the insurance company-Contract of insurance between employer and Insurance Company covering the risk of workman-Contracting out of insurance coverage for payment of interest by an employer is not prohibited in law-Policy expressly excludes interest and penalty imposed on insured employer on account of his failure to comply with the requirements of the Act-Death of workman in the course of his employment and his dependents filed claim-Commissioner allowed compensation with interest and directed Insurance Company to make payment. The Appeal by Insurance Company challenging direction of payment of interest was dismissed. The Apex Court answered that Insurance Company is not liable to pay interest and the same is payable by the employer. 14. Learned counsel referring these decisions, would contend that first of all the death is not on account of the course of employment or arising out of employment and there cannot be any order of payment of compensation in favour of the workman. Learned counsel also would submit that the Workmen’s Commissioner, though committed an error in directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation, apportioned the said compensation, taking note of Ex.R1 and directed respondent No.1 also to pay the compensation. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in M.F.A.No.5322/2011, who is respondent No.1-insured, in his arguments, he vehemently contend that the Workmen’s Commissioner has committed an error in directing the respondent No.1 to pay the compensation. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in M.F.A.No.5322/2011, who is respondent No.1-insured, in his arguments, he vehemently contend that the Workmen’s Commissioner has committed an error in directing the respondent No.1 to pay the compensation. The main contention urged by the learned counsel is that the Workmen’s Commissioner failed to appreciate the documentary and oral evidence produced before the Workmen’s Commissioner while passing the impugned order. The Workmen’s Commissioner erred in directing the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.75,032/-and further erred in directing the appellant to pay the interest at the rate of 7.5% on a sum of Rs.1,76,328/-from 13.08.2006 till the date of realization, which is opposed to law inspite of the appellant has obtained the insurance policy from respondent No.2 and paid the premium for 48 workers. 16. Learned counsel also would submit that he took serious contention in the claim petition that the death is not during the course of employment and also arising out of the employment. In the Coffee plantation, employment work starts from 8.00 a.m. onwards till 4.30 p.m. whereas in the instant case, Swamy Gowda died at 7.00 a.m. and the said aspect has been ignored by the Workmen’s Commissioner. The death was taken place out side the estate due to heart attack and the said fact has not been appreciated by the Workmen’s Commissioner. It is also contended that Rs.70.50/-per day was his wages and the Commissioner has erroneously taken the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.2,600/-per month as per the Minimum Wages Act. 17. The insured in his appeal has raised the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the Commissioner is justified in holding that the deceased Swamy Gowda died during the course of and arising out of the employment inspite of the evidence given by the appellant ? 2. Whether the Commissioner is justified in holding that the deceased Swamy Gowda was earning Rs.2,600/-per month without any documentary evidence ? 3. Whether the Commissioner is justified in fixing the liability to an extent of Rs.75,032/-on the appellant and further the Commissioner is justified in fixing the interest at Rs.7.5% from 13.8.2006 till the date of realisation inspite of obtaining the insurance policy which was in currency? 18. 3. Whether the Commissioner is justified in fixing the liability to an extent of Rs.75,032/-on the appellant and further the Commissioner is justified in fixing the interest at Rs.7.5% from 13.8.2006 till the date of realisation inspite of obtaining the insurance policy which was in currency? 18. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant, in his arguments, would vehemently contend that the contention urged by both the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the insured cannot be accepted. The Workmen’s Commissioner, while considering the material on record, appreciated both oral and documentary evidence rightly and has come to the conclusion that the death is during the course of employment and arising out of employment. Taking note of the fact that he was working with respondent No.1 since last 15 years and while he was proceeding to the work, he fell down in the wet land belongs to respondent No.1, the very contention that the deceased did not work on the date of incident also cannot be accepted. The attendance register produced by respondent No.1 as per Ex.R2 clearly reveals that on the previous day also he worked and his employment was continuous since last 15 years. Hence, the very contention of the respondent’s counsel that it is not a case of incident occurred during the course of employment or arising out of employment, cannot be accepted. 19. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, relied upon the decision reported in ILR 2019 KAR 539 in the case of National Insurance Company Limited, Chitradurga Branch v. Smt. Renukamma and Others, wherein it is held that there cannot be any presumption that even when a person dies while actually working in the job that his death may not be due to the employment, but may be due to something else. Such presumption is nothing short of a perversity and further held that the very contention of the Insurance Company that it is natural death, cannot be accepted due to the strain as the deceased was discharging his duty as a driver, he suffered heart attack that too during the course of employment and on the way to Mangalore with load of iron ore and discharging the job of driver. 20. Learned counsel, referring to this decision, would contend that in the referred case as well as in the case on hand, the death was due to heart attack. 20. Learned counsel, referring to this decision, would contend that in the referred case as well as in the case on hand, the death was due to heart attack. In the case on hand, the deceased slipped from the ridge of the wet land and hence, there is a causal connection with the employment and the cause of death. 21. Learned counsel also relied upon the unreported decision of this Court dated 27.8.2018 passed in M.F.A.No.10991/2010 (WC) in the case of M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sri. Murthaiah and Others and would contend that for the similar issues involved in the matter, this Court while answering the substantial questions of law, referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Daya Kishan Joshi and extracted para Nos.6 and 7 of the said judgment, wherein it is discussed with regard to the word ‘arising out of’ and ‘in the course of employment’ and comes to the conclusion that there cannot be any dispute that the question as to when an employment begins and when it ceases, depends upon the facts of each case. There is a notional extension at both entry and exit by time and space. There may be some reasonable extension in both time and space and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he has not reached or has left employer’s premises. This Court considering the principles laid down in para No.7 of the judgment, dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 22. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision reported in (2014) 14 SCC 21 in the case of Manju Sarkar and Others v. Mabish Miah and Others, wherein the Apex Court considering Section 3(1) of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1953 discussed the scope of accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The Apex Court observed with regard to the principle of notional extension of “course of employment” at both points of entry and exit thereinto, in time and space, held that the same is applicable and discussed with regard to the extent to which they may be applied. Learned counsel referring to this decision would contend that the Apex Court also held with regard to the principle of notional extension of “course of employment”. Learned counsel referring to this decision would contend that the Apex Court also held with regard to the principle of notional extension of “course of employment”. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the principles laid down in the judgment with regard to the liability of Insurance Company to pay the interest in the absence of clause in contract of insurance excluding provision for interest wherein it is held that in the absence of such provision or evidence in support thereof such a contention cannot be raised by the Insurance Company. 23. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision reported in 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 100 in the case of Regional Director E.S.I. Corporation and Another v. Francis De Costa and Another, wherein the Apex Court also discussed the meaning of the word “arising out of and in the course of employment”. The employee going on public road by his own vehicle to join duty – injury caused to him by accident when the workplace and duty time were ahead by only one kilometer and fifteen minutes respectively, it comes within the purview of phrase “arising out of and in the course of employment” and the same has to be broadly interpreted. 24. Learned counsel also further relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 193 in the case of General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay v. Mrs. Agnes, wherein also the Apex Court discussed with regard to accepting the doctrine of “notional extension” of the employer’s premises in the context of an accident to an employee and accepted the findings of the High Court that the accident occurred during the course of his employment and the said decision is a majority decision. 25. Learned counsel referring to the principles laid down in the referred decisions would vehemently contend that even though incident was not taken place while doing the work, he was proceeding to attend the work and the accident was taken place in the land of the insured and the same has not been disputed. The Workmen’s Commissioner also given the definite finding to that effect. Extending the principles laid down in the decisions referred supra with regard to the notional extension, the case on hand also falls within the purview of those decisions. The Workmen’s Commissioner also given the definite finding to that effect. Extending the principles laid down in the decisions referred supra with regard to the notional extension, the case on hand also falls within the purview of those decisions. Even though the death has caused due to heart attack, the insured not disputes the fact that on the previous day of the incident, the deceased worked in the Coffee Plantation and on the next day of the incident, he also proceeded in connection with his employment with the insured and he was near the Coffee Plantation. The deceased while proceeding near the land of the insured, he slipped from the ridge of the wet land and consequent upon, he suffered heart attack and last his breath. Hence, there is a casual connection with the employment and therefore, the claimant is entitled for the compensation and the appeal filed by both the Insurance Company and the insured are liable to be dismissed. 26. Having considered the arguments of the respective counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in both the appeals and the claimant, this Court has to answer the substantial questions of law raised by the respective parties in their respective appeals. 27. The Insurance Company has mainly raised the substantial questions of law that the Commissioner has committed an error in holding that death occurred during the course of employment and arising out of employment and the cause of death was due to heart attack when he slipped down and fell on the wet land which belongs to the insured. The insured also raised the similar substantial questions of law and hence, the substantial questions of law raised by the Insurance Company and also the insured are taken up together for common consideration. 28. Having perused the material on record, both oral and documentary evidence, it is the claim of the claimant that the deceased was working with insured. The insured also not disputed the said fact. The insured relied upon the document Ex.R2-attendance register which discloses that the deceased was working with the insured. But a contention was taken that the death of the deceased was not during the course of employment or arising out of the employment. The Insurance Company also took the defence that the death was due to heart attack which is substantiated by the records. But a contention was taken that the death of the deceased was not during the course of employment or arising out of the employment. The Insurance Company also took the defence that the death was due to heart attack which is substantiated by the records. But, the fact is that, the deceased worked on the previous day also and he was employed with the insured since last 15 years. It is also the specific claim of the claimant that on the date of the incident also, the deceased left the house, in order to attend the work of the insured. It is the further claim of the insured that the work begins at 8 a.m. The claimant, also categorically pleaded that while proceeding to the work of the insured, the deceased slipped down from the wet land which belongs to the insured, who also not disputed the said fact that he fell down and died on his land. Hence, it is clear that, the deceased was proceeding to attend the duty and he slipped down in the wet land and at that time, he has suffered heart attack. 29. No doubt, it is the specific contention of the insured and the Insurance Company that the death of the deceased was not during the course of employment and arising out of the employment. The fact that the deceased left the house, in order to attend the duty has not been disputed. The contention that death of the deceased was not during the course of employment cannot be accepted. 30. The Apex Court in Manju Sarkar’s case referred (supra) discussed in detail with regard to Section 3(1) of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1953 and the scope of accident arising out of and in course of employment. The Apex Court observed with regard to the principle of notional extension of “course of employment” at both points of entry and exit. In the said case, the workmen left the place in order to attend the work in his vehicle which belongs to the insured and comes to a conclusion that the same comes within the principle of notional extension of “course of employment”. 31. The Apex Court in its earlier decision in Francis De Costa’s case referred (supra) discussed the meaning of the word “arising out of and in the course of employment”. 31. The Apex Court in its earlier decision in Francis De Costa’s case referred (supra) discussed the meaning of the word “arising out of and in the course of employment”. The employee going on public road by his own vehicle to join duty – injury caused to him by accident when the workplace and duty time were ahead by only one kilometer and fifteen minutes respectively, it comes within the purview of phrase “arising out of and in the course of employment” and the same has to be broadly interpreted. The two Judges in the said decision held that it comes within the words and phrases, literal construction of the phrase “arising out of his employment”. Hence, there is a force in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant that the phrases “arising out of his employment” and in the “course of employment”, are applicable to the case on hand and the Apex Court also broadly interpreted the same. Hence, the case on hand also comes within the purview of above two judgments. 32. This Court also, in the judgment reported in ILR 2019 KAR 539 in the case of National Insurance Company Limited, Chitradurga Branch v. Smt. Renukamma and Others in similar set of circumstances where the deceased died due to heart attack held that when a person dies while actually working in the job that his death may not be due to the employment, but may be due to something else. Such presumption is nothing short of a perversity and further held that the very contention of the Insurance Company that it is natural death, cannot be accepted due to the strain as the deceased was discharging his duty as a driver, he suffered heart attack that too during the course of employment. In the case on hand also, the deceased was proceeding to the employment and the same has not been disputed. However, the dispute is only with regard to the fact that the work of the deceased commences at 8.00 a.m., but the incident has taken place at 7.30 a.m. and the same has not taken place in the house of the deceased. If the incident has taken place in the house of the deceased, then there is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and also the insured. If the incident has taken place in the house of the deceased, then there is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and also the insured. But, the fact that the deceased had left the house and proceeded to attend his employment and he was near the coffee plantation of the insured and was proceeding in the land belonging to the insured which is adjacent to the coffee plantation where he works is not in dispute. 33. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti’s case referred (supra) wherein it is held that circumstances must be shown to accept that the death caused by reason of cardiac arrest was because of stress and strain of work. The medical opinion would be relevant and each case has to be considered on its own facts and no hard and fast rule can be laid down. It is also held that, unless evidence is brought on record to establish that death by way of cardiac arrest was because of stress and strain of work, the Commissioner would have no jurisdiction to grant damages. In the case on hand also, though Insurance Company disputes that the deceased did not work on the date of the incident, the attendance register produced is very clear that on the previous day also the deceased had worked. On the date of the incident, the deceased was proceeding in the land of the insured and while going, he slipped down in the wet land and as a result, he has suffered heart attack. The very contention of the Insurance Company that the same is not having casual connection with the work cannot be accepted. Though suggestion is made before the Commissioner that on the previous day the deceased did not work, but the attendance register is very clear that the deceased had worked on the previous day also and on the date of the incident, he was proceeding to work. 34. Though suggestion is made before the Commissioner that on the previous day the deceased did not work, but the attendance register is very clear that the deceased had worked on the previous day also and on the date of the incident, he was proceeding to work. 34. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Malikrajuna G.Hiremath’s case referred (supra), wherein the Apex Court held with regard to the driver went to a pond for taking bath where he slipped and drowned comes to the conclusion that there is no causal connection between death of driver and his employment. But, the factual aspects of the case is different from the case on hand. In the case on hand, the deceased was proceeding to attend the work of the insured and the same has not been disputed. However, in the judgment referred supra, death is not in connection with the employment since he was taking bath which is not part of the employment and hence, the Apex Court comes to the conclusion that there is no casual connection with the death and employment and the said judgment is not applicable to the case on hand. Hence, the substantial questions of law raised by the Insurance Company and the insured, cannot be accepted and the same is held as ‘negative’. 35. The substantial question of law raised by the insured is that the Workmen Commissioner was not justified in holding that the deceased Swamy Gowda was earning Rs.2,600/-per month without any documentary evidence. The other substantial question of law raised by the insured is that the Commissioner is not justified in fixing the liability to an extent of Rs.75,032/-to the appellant and further the Commissioner is not justified in fixing the interest at 7.5% from 13.08.2006 till the date of realization, in spite of he has obtained the insurance policy. 36. Having considered the material on record, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that policy was in force. The question before this Court is whether the Commissioner has committed an error in directing the insured to pay the amount of Rs.75,032/-fixing the interest at 7.5% from 13.08.2006. 36. Having considered the material on record, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that policy was in force. The question before this Court is whether the Commissioner has committed an error in directing the insured to pay the amount of Rs.75,032/-fixing the interest at 7.5% from 13.08.2006. Having perused the judgment of the Workmen Commissioner, it is not in dispute that the Commissioner assessed the compensation amount of Rs.1,76,328/-and awarded interest at 7.5% from 13.08.2006 i.e., after one month of the incident and directed the insured to pay the amount of Rs.75,032/-and the Insurance Company to pay the amount of Rs.1,01,196/-within 30 days. It is also observed that, if the amount is not deposited within 30 days, the said amount carries the interest at 7.5%. 37. Firstly, this Court would like to consider the issue with regard to taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,600/-per month. No doubt, the insured has contended that he was paying the wages at Rs.70.50/-per day, in order to substantiate the same, except taking the said defence, no documentary evidence is placed before the Workmen Commissioner. The insured has only relied upon the attendance register which is marked as Ex.R2. Under the circumstances, the contention of the insured that the Workmen Commissioner has committed an error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,600/-per month cannot be accepted. In the absence of documentary proof with regard to the payment of wages of Rs.70.50/-per day, the Workmen Commissioner has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.2,600/-per month, relying upon the Minimum Wages Act, however, not considered the wages under the statute. It is also important to note that no appeal is filed by the claimant and the interest awarded at 7.5% is also not questioned by the claimant. Hence, in the absence of appeal by the claimant, the same cannot be reconsidered. The very contention of the insured that the Workmen Commissioner has committed an error in directing him to pay Rs.75,032/-with interest on the entire compensation is erroneous also cannot be accepted. 38. Having perused Ex.R1-copy of the policy which is not disputed by both the appellants i.e., insured and the Insurance Company, which discloses that there is an endorsement on the policy, interest and penalty exclusion vide Endorsement No.345 and the same is not disputed by the insured. 38. Having perused Ex.R1-copy of the policy which is not disputed by both the appellants i.e., insured and the Insurance Company, which discloses that there is an endorsement on the policy, interest and penalty exclusion vide Endorsement No.345 and the same is not disputed by the insured. The official of the Insurance Company, who has been examined as R.W.1 in his evidence by way of an affidavit in paragraph No.7 has given the details with regard to the policy, number of employees and the wages of the employees. In paragraph Nos.5 and 6, he has categorically contended that liability is governed by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay interest and or penalty that may be levied in the above case. 39. R.W.1 was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination of R.W.1, nothing is elicited with regard to the endorsement on the policy-Ex.R1. However, the endorsement made on Ex.R1-policy with regard to the interest and penalty exclusion is not disputed by the insured. Having perused the cross-examination, both the claimant and the insured have not disputed the same and also it is important to note that learned counsel for the insured made the submission before the Workmen Commissioner that he is not having any cross-examination. Under the circumstances, the substantial question of law raised by the insured that the Workmen Commissioner has committed an error in directing him to pay the interest on the entire amount cannot be accepted having considered the endorsement on Ex.R1-policy. 40. The Apex Court also, in the judgment relied upon by the Insurance Company in Hashadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya’s case referred (supra) held that Insurance Company is not liable for the interest when the policy expressly excludes interest and penalty imposed on insured employer on account of his failure to comply with the requirements of law and further held that interest is payable by the employer. 41. This Court, in Gangavva’s case referred (supra) categorically held that employer’s liability to pay as per Commissioner’s award and the same varied between wages actually drawn by deceased employee and wages shown by employer as payable to employee for purpose of payment of insurance premia. 41. This Court, in Gangavva’s case referred (supra) categorically held that employer’s liability to pay as per Commissioner’s award and the same varied between wages actually drawn by deceased employee and wages shown by employer as payable to employee for purpose of payment of insurance premia. I have already pointed out that, in the evidence of R.W.1, in paragraph No.7, the Insurance Company has provided the salary particulars and payment of premium in respect of 48 employees to the extent of Rs.8,60,000/-and the Workmen Commissioner apportioned the liability of the insured as well as the Insurance Company taking into consideration the premium paid. When such being the case, the very contention of the insured that apportioning the payment of compensation to an extent of Rs.75,032/-against the insured and directing to pay the interest is erroneous cannot be accepted and the same is based on the contract of indemnity between the insured and the insurer. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the insured. Accordingly, I answer the substantial question of law raised by the insured with regard to taking the income of the deceased and also the apportionment of interest as ‘negative’. 42. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The appeals filed by both the insured and the Insurance Company are dismissed. (ii) The insured and the insurer are directed to pay the compensation amount in terms of the award with interest as directed within six weeks from today, if the same is not paid. (iii) The Registry is directed to transmit the amount in deposit, if any before this Court to the concerned Court of Employees Compensation Commissioner, Chickmagalur. (iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court Records, forthwith.