JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been directed against an award dated 29th February, 2016, passed by the Court of Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner) Jammu, (hereinafter referred to as ‘ALC’), vide which the claimant- respondent No.1, has been held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1, 77840 and Rs. 298712 as interest for delayed payment and while respondent No.2 has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs to the claimant/respondent No.1, in terms of the Insurance Policy, appellant has been fastened with the liability to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 2.76552 with ALC within 30 days of the passing of award failing which same is to recovered as arrears of land revenue by invoking Section 31 of the Employees Compensation Act (for short “the Compensation Act’). 2. Shorn of verbosity, relevant facts of the case are that respondent No.1 came to be engaged as a Casual Employee by the Commandant, 60 Battalion B.S.F - respondent No.4 on the wages of Rs. 100/ per day, for border fencing and flood lighting work near own post Tube Well-5, B.O.P Abdullian, EX-60 Bn/B.S.F on 23.02.2023. While he was performing his duties, he met with an accident of mine blast injury with crush injury left foot. He was evacuated to Government Medical College, Jammu, and Syme’s Amputation was done on 23.02.2003. Respondent No.1 preferred a claim petition under the Compensation Act. 3. The claim petition was resisted by the appellants primarily on the ground that respondent No.1 sustained injuries in the mine blast due to his own negligence, carelessness and disobedience, since the claimant along with other civil labourers were strictly instructed to follow the cemented Pacca Path and to keep away from the Mine field on the border side, but the claimant/respondent No.1 disobeyed the instructions and exposed himself to the injury. However, it was contended by the appellants that since they had taken the insurance cover, therefore respondent No.2- Insurance Company was liable to indemnify and pay the amount of compensation. 4. On the other hand, respondent No.2 Insurance Company disputed the employer-employee relationship between the appellant and respondent No.1 to deny its liability. 5. Following issues came to be drawn by the ALC :- (a) Whether the petitioner met with an accident during and in the course of employment with the respondents? 4. On the other hand, respondent No.2 Insurance Company disputed the employer-employee relationship between the appellant and respondent No.1 to deny its liability. 5. Following issues came to be drawn by the ALC :- (a) Whether the petitioner met with an accident during and in the course of employment with the respondents? OPP (b) What were the wages and age of the petition at the time of accident? OPP (c) Relief. 6. Respondent No.1-claim petitioner, besides himself appearing as a witness, examined PW Sat Pal. On the other hand, the appellants examined two witnesses and respondent No.2-Insurance Company also examined RW- Parvez, to prove its liability cover for sum insured of Rs. 2.00 lacs only. Pertinently, it was admitted by RW–Parvez while admitting the insurance policy that policy covers the date of accident and petitioner is covered under the policy. 7. Learned ALC on critical analysis of the evidence led on the rival sides and having regard to the legal position governing the field passed the impugned award as mentioned at the outset. 8. Although, appellants have questioned the impugned award on various grounds and substantial questions of law raised in the memo of appeal, however, Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned CGSC appearing for the appellants has relied upon “Vaid Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi & Ors” (1997) 8. SCC-1, to confine his challenge to the impugned award by contending that ALC has fallen in grave error of law to fasten liability on the appellants as the liability to pay interest on the principal amount under the Compensation Act is part and parcel of the statutory liability to be discharged by the Insurance Company-respondent No.2 in the present case. 9. Per contra, Mr. Rupinder Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company has relied upon “National Insurance Company Limited, Trichy Vs. Kathamuthu Bright Industries, Trichy” 1997 (4) LLN 698 and “New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Arunachalam & Ors” 2007 ACJ 1580 , to defend the impugned award by contending that since liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs. 2.00 lacs, therefore, respondent No.2- Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of any amount in excess of the contractual liability. 10. At the foremost, I would like to elucidate the cardinal principal on which a claim under insurance policy is to be examined. 11. 2.00 lacs, therefore, respondent No.2- Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of any amount in excess of the contractual liability. 10. At the foremost, I would like to elucidate the cardinal principal on which a claim under insurance policy is to be examined. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Suraj Mal Ram Nivas Oil Mills (P) Limited Vs United Insurance Company Limited”, 2010 SCC Online SC 1148 has held that the words used in the contract of insurance must be given paramount importance and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. 12. An identical view has been expressed by the Apex Court in “Export Credit Guaranteed Corporation of India Limited Vs. Garg Sons International” 2014 (1) SCC 686 by holding that insurance contract are in the nature, where exceptions cannot be made on ground of equity and courts ought not to interfere with the terms of the insurance agreement. 13. Again, Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Vikram Green Tech Vs. New India Insurance Co. Limited” (2009) 5 SCC 599 , reiterated the aforesaid principal that insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. It was observed that clauses of insurance policy have to be read as they are. Consequently, the terms of the insurance policy, that fix the responsibility of the insurance policy must be read strictly. 14. It is manifest from the principal of law enunciated in the aforesaid pronouncements that terms of insurance policy are to be construed strictly and insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the contract of insurance, nor the insurance company be fastened with the liability exceeding the insurance policy. 15. However, the question which arises for consideration in the present case is whether the insured is entitled to interest for delayed payment of compensation, and if yes, from whom? 16. Before I, revert to the merits, it shall be appropriate to recall that claimant/respondent No.1 has been held entitled by the ALC to a compensation of Rs. 1, 77, 840/- and Rs. 2,98,712/ as interest for delayed payment of compensation. While the respondent-Insurance Company has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs in terms of the insurance contract, the insured appellant has been fastened with the liability to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,76,552/. 17. 1, 77, 840/- and Rs. 2,98,712/ as interest for delayed payment of compensation. While the respondent-Insurance Company has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs in terms of the insurance contract, the insured appellant has been fastened with the liability to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,76,552/. 17. It is pertinent to mention here that neither the Insurance Company nor claimant has thrown challenge to the impugned award. It is also significant to underline that respondent No-2-Insurance Company has not only paid the principal compensation of Rs. 1,77,840/- but a part of the interest also, as it has paid an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs as per the contractual liability and same has been received by the claimant-respondent No.1. 18. Now, I would like to elucidate the principal on the basis of which the Insurance Company is liable to pay interest when it delays a claim. 19. It needs to be understood that when Insurance Company denies or delays a claim, it continues to invest the profits that would otherwise be in the pocket of the insured or the beneficiary. The insurer owes the interest it accrued by holding unto the money of the beneficiary. Occasionally, an insurer or agent of Insurance Company may tell a beneficiary that a claim has been approved but insurer will be slow to send the payment. In the circumstances, the longer an insure retains the funds, longer it continues to invest the said proceeds and reap the profits. Therefore, if Insurance Company is delaying payment of a claim the beneficiary is entitled to the interest for delayed payment of compensation. 20. I have the benefit of elucidation in this behalf arising from an authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court in Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi & Ors” reported as (1997) 8 SSC 1, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to analyse the scheme of the Compensation Act as also the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (for short “the M.V. Act”) . Premi Devi & Ors” reported as (1997) 8 SSC 1, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to analyse the scheme of the Compensation Act as also the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (for short “the M.V. Act”) . A plea in the said case, was raised by the Insurance Company that on the schemes of the Compensation Act and M.V. Act, Insurance Companies would be liable to meet the liability of the insured to the extent of the principal amount of compensation and it was urged that so far as the penalty amounts by way of additional interest and additional compensation as contemplated by Section 4-A (3) of the Compensation Act are concerned they are payable by the insured employers for their own default. It was argued that such claims would be dehors the contractual liability flowing from the insurance policy. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court held in clear terms that if the relevant schemes of both the Acts viz-a-viz the Compensation Act and M.V. Act are read in conjunction, there is no escape from the conclusion that Insurance Companies are not only liable to pay the principal amount of compensation but also the interest thereon. It was also observed that legislative intent, on analyzing the scheme of Section 4-A of the Compensation Act is clearly discernible that once compensation falls due and is not paid within one month by the employer, then the interest is automatically added to the said principal amount of compensation because claimants in such cases would be deprived of their legally due compensation for a period beyond one month. It was held in clear terms that liability to pay interest on the principal amount remains a part and parcel of the statutory liability and it cannot be said by the Insurance Company that it is statutorily and contractually liable to reimburse the employer qua his statutory liability to pay compensation to the claimants. Relevant excerpt captured in para 14 of the judgement is reproduced below for the facility of the reference:- “On a conjoint operation of the relevant schemes of the aforesaid twin Acts, in our view, there is no escape from the conclusion that the insurance companies will be liable to make good not only the principal amounts of compensation payable by insured employers but also interest thereon, if ordered by the Commissioner to be paid by the insured employers. Reason for this conclusion is obvious. As we have noted earlier the liability to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act gets foisted on the employer provided it is shown that the workman concerned suffered from personal injury, fatal or otherwise, by any motor accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. such an accident is also covered by the statutory coverage contemplated by Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with the identical provisions under the very contracts of insurance reflected by the Policy which would made the insurance company liable to cover all such claims for compensation for which statutory liability is imposed on the employer under Section 3 read with Section 4A of the Compensation Act. All these provisions represent a well- knit scheme for computing the statutory liability of the employers in cases of such accidents to their workmen. As we have seen earlier while discussing the scheme of Section 4A of the Compensation Act the legislative intent is clearly discernible that once compensation falls due and within one month it is not paid by the employer then as per Section 4A(3)(a) interest at the permissible rate gets added to the said principal amount of compensation as the claimants would stand deprived of their legally due compensation for a period beyond one month which is statutorily granted to the employer concerned to make good his liability for the benefit of the claimants whose bread-winner might have either been seriously injured or might have lost his life. Thus so far as interest is concerned it is almost automatic once default, on the part of the employer in paying the compensation due, takes place beyond the permissible limit of one month. No element of penalty is involved therein. It is a statutory elongation of the liability of the employer to make good the principal amount of compensation within permissible time limit during which interest may not run but otherwise liability of paying interest on delayed compensation will ipso facto follows. Even though the Commissioner under these circumstances can impose a further liability on the employer under circumstances and within limits contemplated by Section 4A(3)(a) still the liability to pay interest on the principal amount under the said provision remains a part and parcel of the statutory liability which is legally liable to be discharged by the insured employer. Even though the Commissioner under these circumstances can impose a further liability on the employer under circumstances and within limits contemplated by Section 4A(3)(a) still the liability to pay interest on the principal amount under the said provision remains a part and parcel of the statutory liability which is legally liable to be discharged by the insured employer. Consequently such imposition of interest on the principal amount would certainly partake the character of the legal liability of the insured employer to pay the compensation amount with due interest as imposed upon him under the Compensation Act. Thus the principal amount as well as the interest made payable thereon would remain part and parcel of the legal liability of the insured to be discharged under the Compensation Act and not dehors it. It, therefore, cannot be said by the insurance company that when it is statutorily and even contractually liable to reimburse the employer qua his statutory liability to pay compensation to the claimants in case of such motor accidents to his workmen, the interest on the principal amount which almost automatically gets foisted upon him once the compensation amount is not paid within one month from the date it fell due, would not be a part f the insured liability of the employer. No question of justification by the insured employer for the delay in such circumstances would arise for consideration……”. (underlined by me for emphasis) 21. Later, Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Kamla Chaturvedi Vs. National Insurance Co.. & Ors” 2009 (1) SCC 487 , has reiterated the aforesaid principal enunciated in Ved Prakash Garg (supra) in the following words:- “In Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi & others ( 1997 (8) SCC 1 ] this court observed that the Insurance Company is liable to pay not only the principal amount of compensation payable by the insurer employer but also interest thereon if ordered by the Commissioner to be paid by the insured, employee. Insurance company is liable to meet claim for compensation along with interest as imposed on insurer employer by the Act on conjoint operation of Section 3 and 4(A) (3) (a) of the Act…..” 22. Insurance company is liable to meet claim for compensation along with interest as imposed on insurer employer by the Act on conjoint operation of Section 3 and 4(A) (3) (a) of the Act…..” 22. It is evident from what has been enunciated by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases that though insured cannot claim anything exceeding the contractually liability, however, when claim of a beneficiary is delayed for no fault on his part, the insurer owes the interest, it accrued by holding unto the money of the insured or the beneficiary. 23. The case law relied by Mr Rupinder Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company is of no help to him to escape the liability. In both National Insurance Company Limited (supra) and New India Insurance Company (supra), it was nature of the policy which was an issue before the Madras High Court. The question posed in the present case that whether Insurance Company can be made liable to pay the interest as contemplated under Section 4-(A) (3) of the Compensation Act or not, was neither an issue in the said cases nor discussed or adjudicated upon. As already discussed, the respondent No.2- Insurance Company in the present case has not thrown any challenge to the impugned award. Therefore, respondent No.2- Insurance Company cannot be heard to question the nature of policy in the present case. It is also pertinent to underline, as already pointed out that respondent No.-2-Insurance Company has not only paid the principal compensation of Rs. 1,77,840 in the present case but has already paid a part of interest as it has paid an amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs and same has been received by the claimant-respondent No.1. Since, respondent No.2-Insurance Company has already paid a part of the interest, it cannot escape the liability to pay the balance amount of interest for the reasons discussed in detail in the preceeding paras. 24. For what has been observed and discussed above, the present appeal is allowed and impugned award is modified by providing that respondent No.2- Insurance Company shall pay the entire compensation i.e. principal compensation of Rs. 1,77,480 and interest of Rs. 2.98,712/- for delayed payment to the claimant-respondent No.1. Since the respondent No.2-Insurnace Company has already deposited and claimant-respondent No.1 has already received an amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs, therefore, respondent No.2 shall pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,77,480 and interest of Rs. 2.98,712/- for delayed payment to the claimant-respondent No.1. Since the respondent No.2-Insurnace Company has already deposited and claimant-respondent No.1 has already received an amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs, therefore, respondent No.2 shall pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,76,552/- along with interest to respondent No.1 within a period of (30) days from the date of passing of this judgement, failing which same shall be recovered by the ALC, as areas of land revenue in terms of Section 31 of the Compensation Act.