JUDGMENT : C.M. JOSHI, J. 1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 17-09-2018 passed in ECA No. 64/2014 by the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, whereby a sum of Rs. 4,69,640/- has been awarded as compensation together with interest at 12% p.a. fastening liability on the Insurance Company on account of the death of Madegowda. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that, deceased Madegowda was the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 and was working under respondent No. 1 in Sugar Cane Crushing Factory engaged in preparation of Jaggary at Kopparayanakoppal, Srirangapatna, Mandya District. On 20.07.2014 at about 4.50 PM when the deceased was putting sugar cane bagasse into oven and two oxen were taking rounds near sugar cane furnace. At that time the wooden stick which was kept on the oxen hit the deceased Madegowda and he fell down in the sugar cane furnace and sustained burn injuries. He was taken to K.R. Hospital, Mysuru and admitted as inpatient and died on 23.07.2014. After conducting the post-mortem, the dead body was taken to their village and funeral and obsequies ceremonies were conducted. He was the only earning member of the family and the petitioners were depending on the deceased. The police have registered the case in UDR No. 40/2014 dated 24.07.2014. Respondent no. 1 being the employer has not helped the petitioners in any way. At the time of incident, the deceased was 60 years old and he was getting coolie of Rs. 300/- per day and the respondent No. 2 being the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 3. On issuance of notice, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have appeared and filed their objections. The respondent No. 1 has admitted that he is the owner of the sugar cane crushing machine/jaggary unit and contended that the deceased was getting Rs. 200/- per day as coolie and the respondent no. 2 is the insurance company and the crushing machine was insured with respondent no. 2 and therefore, the respondent No. 2 is liable to pay the compensation. 4. 200/- per day as coolie and the respondent no. 2 is the insurance company and the crushing machine was insured with respondent no. 2 and therefore, the respondent No. 2 is liable to pay the compensation. 4. The respondent No. 2 contended that the petitioners are the residents of Taralli village, Beguru Hobli, Gundlupete Taluk, Chamarajanagar District and the alleged accident has occurred in Mandya District and therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the matter. It has also contended that the petitioners are taking undue advantage of the names referred as Mahadevegowda and Madegowda. The husband of petitioner No. 1 was not getting the alleged salary under the respondent No. 1. It has contended that the respondent No. 1 has taken employers liability other than colliers policy from the respondent under the policy no. 422800/48/2015/633 covering for the period from 17.07.2014 to 16.07.2015. If there is any violation of condition, it is not liable to indemnify the respondent No. 1 as the petitioners and the respondent no. 1 have not produced any documents to show that the deceased was working under respondent No. 1 and prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. The Tribunal on the basis of the above pleadings, framed the following issues: “1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased was working under respondent no. 1 at the time of incident? 2. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained during the course of his employment? 3. Whether the petitioners prove the salary of the deceased under the employment of respondent no. 1 as stated in the petition? 4. Whether the petitioners prove they were the dependents of the deceased? 5. Whether the petitioners prove that the respondents are liable to pay compensation and interest as prayed in the petition? 6. What order?” 6. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence of PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P8 on behalf of petitioners as no oral or documentary evidence is adduced by the respondents, heard the arguments by both sides and partly allowed the claim petition holding that the wages as per the notification of the Central Government u/s 4 (1B) of EC Act is Rs. 8,000/- per month, petitioner No. 1 is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 4,69,640/- (Rs. 8,000/- per month, petitioner No. 1 is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 4,69,640/- (Rs. 8,000/- x 50% x 117.41 factor) from respondent No. 2 along with interest at 12% p.a. after 30 days from the date of incident till its realization and dismissed the claim of petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 and directed the respondent No. 2-Insurance company to pay the compensation amount within thirty days from the order. 7. Being aggrieved by the above said judgment and award, the Insurance Company has approached this Court in appeal. 8. This Court while admitting the appeal on 7-7-2022, framed the following substantial question of law for consideration: “Whether the trial Court was justified in fastening the entire liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation when the policy has been taken for monthly wages of the employee below Rs. 4,000/-?” 9. On issuance of notice, respondents No. 1 to 7 appeared through their counsel and respondent No. 8/insured served and remained unrepresented. The Tribunal records were secured. 10. Arguments by both sides are heard. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant insurer is liable to pay only to the extent of the compensation that is applicable for wages of Rs. 3,000/- per month per employee, up to 6 employees as per the policy. He further submits that the insurance company is not liable to pay the interest, since there is a specific clause in the policy to that effect. In this regard he relied on the decision in the case of Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Irayya in MFA No. 22224 of 2013. He also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Shanuna Mandal in MFA No. 3750 of 1996. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents claimants contended that the question of liability of interest has been considered by the Apex court and it was held that the interest alone can be fastened on the Insurance company, but not the penalty. In this regard she relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg vs. Premi Devi and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 1 . She also relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of National Insurance Co. In this regard she relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg vs. Premi Devi and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 1 . She also relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhim Singh and Others, 2011 SCC Online Del 1705 and the decision of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Lachhman Thapa and Others, 2022 ACJ 326 . Both these judgments rely on the decision in the case of Ved Prakash Garg (referred supra). 13. The first aspect to be decided by this Court is regarding the liability of the interest. The second would be about the portion of the compensation to be paid by the insurer. 14. The judgment of this Court in the case of Irayya (Supra) in MFA No. 22224 of 2013 relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya, (2006) 5 SCC 192 in coming to the conclusion that the interest cannot be fastened on the insurer. The Apex court in above decision has held as below: “4. However, therein a proviso has been added which reads as under: “Provided that the insurance granted hereunder is not extended to include: (i) any interest and/or penalty imposed on the insured on account of his/her failure to comply with the requirements laid down under the WC Act, 1923. (ii) any compensation payable on account of occupational diseases listed in Part ‘C’ of Schedule III of the WC Act, 1923.” xxx xxx xxx 19. As indicated hereinbefore, a contract of insurance is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act. Unless the said contract is governed by the provisions of a statute, the parties are free to enter into a contract as for their own volition. The Act does not contain a provision like Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Where a statute does not provide for a compulsory insurance or the extent thereof, it will bear repetition to state that the parties are free to choose their own terms of contract. In that view of the matter, contracting out, so far as reimbursement of amount of interest is concerned, in our opinion, is not prohibited by a statute. 20. Where a statute does not provide for a compulsory insurance or the extent thereof, it will bear repetition to state that the parties are free to choose their own terms of contract. In that view of the matter, contracting out, so far as reimbursement of amount of interest is concerned, in our opinion, is not prohibited by a statute. 20. The views taken by us find support from a recent judgment of this Court in P.J. Narayan vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 200 wherein it was held: “This writ petition is for the purposes of directing the insurance company to delete the clause in the insurance policy which provides that in cases of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the insurance company will not be liable to pay interest. We see no substance in the writ petition. There is no statutory liability on the insurance company. The statutory liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act is on the employer. An insurance is a matter of contract between the insurance company and the insured. It is always open to the insurance company to refuse to insure. Similarly, they are entitled to provide by contract that they will not take on liability for interest. In the absence of any statute to that effect, insurance companies cannot be forced by courts to take on liabilities which they do not want to take on. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.” 21. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is not liable for the interest. However, we make it clear that the employer shall be liable to pay the amount of interest to the claimant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” xxx xxx xxx 24. Section 17 of the Workmen's Compensation Act voids only a contract or agreement whereby a workman relinquishes any right of compensation from the employer for personal injury arising out of or in the course of the employment and insofar as it purports to remove or reduce the liability of any person to pay compensation under the Act. Section 17 of the Workmen's Compensation Act voids only a contract or agreement whereby a workman relinquishes any right of compensation from the employer for personal injury arising out of or in the course of the employment and insofar as it purports to remove or reduce the liability of any person to pay compensation under the Act. As my learned Brother has noticed, in the Workmen's Compensation Act, there are no provisions corresponding to those in the Motor Vehicles Act, insisting on the insurer covering the entire liability arising out of an award towards compensation to a third party arising out of a motor accident. It is not brought to our notice that there is any other law enacted which stands in the way of an insurance company and the insured entering into a contract confining the obligation of the insurance company to indemnify to a particular head or to a particular amount when it relates to a claim for compensation to a third party arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In this situation, the obligation of the insurance company clearly stands limited and the relevant proviso providing for exclusion of liability for interest or penalty has to be given effect to. Unlike the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act the Workmen's Compensation Act does not confer a right on the claimant for compensation under that Act to claim the payment of compensation in its entirety from the insurer himself. The entitlement of the claimant under the Workmen's Compensation Act is to claim the compensation from the employer. As between the employer and the insurer, the rights and obligations would depend upon the terms of the insurance contract. Construing the contract involved here it is clear that the insurer has specifically excluded any liability for interest or penalty under the Workmen's Compensation Act and confined its liability to indemnify the employer only against the amount of compensation ordered to be paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The High Court was, therefore, not correct in holding that the appellant Insurance Company, is also liable to pay the interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner. The workman has to recover it from the employer.” 15. Later, in the decision of Kamla Chaturvedi vs. National Insurance Co. (2009) 1 SCC 487 the Apex Court had the occasion to clarify the above judgments and held as below: “8. The workman has to recover it from the employer.” 15. Later, in the decision of Kamla Chaturvedi vs. National Insurance Co. (2009) 1 SCC 487 the Apex Court had the occasion to clarify the above judgments and held as below: “8. In New India Assurance Co. vs. Harshadbhai Case (2006) 5 SCC 192 Ved Prakash Garg Case (1997) 8 SCC 1 was distinguished on facts. It was observed that in the said case the Court was not concerned with a case where an accident had occurred by use of motor vehicle in respect whereof the contract of insurance will be governed by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the MV Act”): 19.........a contract of insurance is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act [1938 (in short ‘the Insurance Act’)]. Unless the said contract is governed by the provisions of a statute, the parties are free to enter into a contract as [per] their own volition. The Act does not contain a provision like Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Where a statute does not provide for a compulsory insurance or the extent thereof.....the parties are free to choose their own terms of contract. In that view of the matter, contracting out, so far as the reimbursement of amount of interest is concerned.....is not prohibited by a statute.” This position has been reiterated in P.J. Narayan vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 200 . In the instant case the position is different. The accident in question arose on account of vehicular accident and the provisions of the MV Act are clearly applicable. We have gone through the policy of insurance and we find that no such exception as was the case in New India Assurance Co. vs. Harshadbhai Case (2006) 5 SCC 192 was stipulated in the policy of insurance. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the interest.” 16. Therefore, when the matter stood distinguished, the liability to pay the interest would be governed by the terms and conditions in the policy. In the case on hand, though the policy was produced by the appellant Insurance Company, before the learned Commissioner, it was not marked. The insured did not dispute the policy. Therefore, when the matter stood distinguished, the liability to pay the interest would be governed by the terms and conditions in the policy. In the case on hand, though the policy was produced by the appellant Insurance Company, before the learned Commissioner, it was not marked. The insured did not dispute the policy. A perusal of the policy shows that the following endorsement is found: “It is hereby understood and agreed that the cover provided under this policy shall not extend to indemnify the Insured/Insured's in respect of any interest and/or penalty which may be imposed on him/them on account of his/their failure to comply with the requirements laid down under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and subsequent amendments of the said Act.” 17. Obviously, this clause is in pari-materia with the clause contained in the policy that was considered by the Apex Court in Para-4 of Harshadbhai's case supra. In that view of the matter, the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest on the compensation amount. 18. Coming to the question of quantum of the compensation to be fastened on the insurance Company, again the liability is governed by the wages as agreed in the policy. Obviously, the policy covered 6 workmen with wages of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The appellant insurer is liable to compensate to the extent of 3000 x 50% x 117.41 (factor) = Rs. 1,76,115/- since the age of 60 years of the deceased is not in dispute. 19. Rest of the compensation and the interest on entire compensation amount has to be fastened on the insured/employer. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Hence, the following: ORDER: (i) The appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and award is modified. (ii) The appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,76,115/- to the claimants. (iii) The insured/respondent No. 8 herein, is liable to pay Rs. 2,93,525/- to the claimants. (iv) The insured/respondent No. 8 herein is also liable to pay interest at 12% p.a. on Rs. 4,69,340/- commencing after 30 days from the date of incident till the date of realisation. (v) The amount in deposit if any shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.