JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. The First Appeal is filed by the appellants – original claimants against the judgment and award dated 04.11.2008 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Ahmedabad in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 141 of 2001, whereby the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.2,22,379/- with interest @ 6% p.a. in favour of original claimants and also directed the United India Insurance Company respondent No.2 herein to pay penalty of Rs.55,494/- alongwith Rs.1,000/- costs. Whereas, the Cross Objection is filed by the respondent No.1 – truck owner challenging the very same judgment and award dated 04.11.2008 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Ahmedabad in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 141 of 2001. 2. The short facts giving rise to present appeal are as under:- 2.1 The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased Shri Arjanbhai Amarsinh Chauhan. That, the deceased was working with the respondent No.1 herein as a Driver on Truck bearing registration No.GJ-18-T-103 and was drawing Rs.2,100/- p.m. That, the deceased, as per the instructions of the respondent No.1, had gone to fill the truck with gravels to Vadagam and was coming back to Ahmedabad at around 4.00 a.m. At that time, near Degmar Lake, Hansol due to a vehicle coming with full beam from the other side, the deceased had to take the truck to side and due to that, the truck collided with a tree. Due to that accident, the victim Shri Arjanbhai suffered serious injuries and succumbed to the death. For the said accident, the appellants herein filed W.C. application No.141 of 2001 before the Workmen’s Commissioner, Ahmedabad for compensation. After hearing the parties and considering the material on record, the learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.2,22,379/- with interest @ 6% p.a. in favour of original claimants and also directed the United India Insurance Company respondent No.2 herein to pay penalty of Rs.55,494/- alongwith Rs.1,000/- costs. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner, the appellants – original claimants have filed the First Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensations Act, 1923 and the respondent No.1 – truck owner has filed the Cross Objection. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi, appearing for the appellants – original claimants and learned advocate Ms. Hina Desai, appearing for the respondent No.2 – United India Insurance Company Limited. 5. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi, appearing for the appellants – original claimants and learned advocate Ms. Hina Desai, appearing for the respondent No.2 – United India Insurance Company Limited. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Modi has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner is erroneous, illegal and unjust and against the settled legal principles. He has submitted that the learned Commissioner has erred in granting interest @ 6% only on the amount of compensation despite the Employer failed to make the payment within one month from the date of accident. He has submitted that there is a specific provision in the Act wherein, the Employer is required to pay interest @ 12% and thus, there is a jurisdictional error committed by the learned Commissioner while awarding interest @ 6% and also the learned Commissioner has erred in not considering the penalty @ 50% and thus, it involves substantial question of law. He has further submitted that so far as the maintainability is concerned, learned Commissioner has committed a serious error of law while considering the fact that the insurance policy was under Motor Vehicles Act and not under Workmen’s Compensation Act and therefore, liability of interest is required to be fastened upon the Insurance Company and not upon the owner, which is a jurisdictional error. He has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner is erroneous, illegal and unjust which is required to be considered as a substantial question of law and therefore, present appeal is maintainable. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Modi has referred and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Employees State Insurance Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Vasantbhai Bhudarbhai Parmar , reported in [2007] 1 GLR 879 Learned advocate Mr. Modi has also referred and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Kamla Chaturvedi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others , reported in [2009] ACJ 115 so far as the liability of interest is concerned and urged that in view of the aforesaid decision, the liability to pay interest is upon the Insurance Company and therefore, the impugned order be appropriately modified to that extent. 6. As against that, learned advocate Ms. Ltd. and others , reported in [2009] ACJ 115 so far as the liability of interest is concerned and urged that in view of the aforesaid decision, the liability to pay interest is upon the Insurance Company and therefore, the impugned order be appropriately modified to that extent. 6. As against that, learned advocate Ms. Desai, appearing for the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company, has objected the present appeal and submitted that the learned Commissioner has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and award and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present appeal and the same is required to be dismissed. 7. Learned advocate Mr. P.M. Darji, appearing for the respondent No.1, who has preferred Cross-Objection, passed away during the pendency of the present proceedings, and therefore, the same is also required to be decided. 8. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also considered the Record & Proceedings and the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner. I have also perused the decision of this Court referred and relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant that even if the substantial question is not framed or not proposed by the appellant at the stage of admission, it can be agitated at the stage of final hearing and therefore, considering the said aspect, I am of the opinion that the issue agitated by the learned advocate Mr. Modi is required to be considered to that extent only. So far as the contention raised by the learned advocate Mr. Modi with regard to liability of interest that the policy was under Motor Vehicles Act and not under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is concerned, considering the decision in case of Kamla Chaturvedi (Supra), the same is required to be modified to the extent that the liability to pay interest is fastened upon the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company and not upon the respondent No.1 – owner and instead of 6%, the rate of interest is awarded 12% and thus, the present appeal is required to be partly allowed. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder : “6. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder : “6. In Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and 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. It was, however, held that it was the liability of the insured employer alone in respect of additional amount of compensation by way of penalty under Section 4(A)(3)(b) of the Act. In New India Assurance Co.'s case (supra) and Ved Prakash Garg's case (supra) 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 `M.V. Act'). 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 148 of the MV Act where a statute does not provide for a compulsory insurance or accident thereof. The parties are free to choose their 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 have been reiterated in P.J. Narayan v. Union of India and others [ 2006 (5) SCC 200 ]. In the instant case the position is different. The accident in question arose on account of vehicular accident and provisions of 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.'s case was stipulated in the policy of insurance. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the interest. 7. The further question arises as to from which date it would be paid. 8. We have gone through the policy of insurance and we find that no such exception as was the case in New India Assurance Co.'s case was stipulated in the policy of insurance. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the interest. 7. The further question arises as to from which date it would be paid. 8. In National Insurance co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed & Anr. [ 2007(2) SCC 349 ] it was, inter alia, held as follows: "(9) Interest is payable under Section 4-A(3) if there is default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due. The question of liability under Section 4-A was dealt with by this Court in Maghar Singh v. Jashwant Singh [ (1998) 9 SCC 134 ]. By amending Act 30 of 1995, Section 4-A of the Act was amended, inter alia, fixing the minimum rate of interest to be simple interest @ 12%. In the instant case, the accident took place after the amendment and, therefore, the rate of 12% as fixed by the High Court cannot be faulted. But the period as fixed by it is wrong. The starting point is on completion of one month from the date on which it fell due. Obviously it cannot be the date of accident. Since no indication is there as to when it becomes due, it has to be taken to be the date of adjudication of the claim. This appears to be so because Section 4-A(1) prescribes that compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. The compensation becomes due on the basis of adjudication of the claim made. The adjudication under Section 4 in some cases involves the assessment of loss of earning capacity by a qualified medical practitioner. Unless adjudication is done, question of compensation becoming due does not arise. The position becomes clearer on a reading of sub- section (2) of Section 4- A. It provides that provisional payment to the extent of admitted liability has to be made when employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed. The crucial expression is "falls due". Significantly, legislature has not used the expression "from the date of accident". Unless there is an adjudication, the question of an amount falling due does not arise.” 8.1. The crucial expression is "falls due". Significantly, legislature has not used the expression "from the date of accident". Unless there is an adjudication, the question of an amount falling due does not arise.” 8.1. At this stage, it is also relevant to take into account provisions of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which reads as under:- "30. Appeals.— (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely: (a)an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;(aa)an order awarding interest or penalty under section 4A; (b)an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment; (c)an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased employee, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant; (d)an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 12; or (e)an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions: Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than thousand rupees or such higher amount as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify: Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties: Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. (2)The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (3)The provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall be applicable to appeals under this section." 9. (2)The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (3)The provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall be applicable to appeals under this section." 9. In view of above, the impugned judgment and award dated 04.11.2008 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Ahmedabad in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 141 of 2001 is hereby modified to the extent that the interest @ 12% instead of 6% is to be borne by the respondent No.2 herein – Insurance Company and not by the respondent No.1 – owner of the vehicle. 9.1 The respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the amount of interest @ 12% before the court concerned within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of order of this Court. Once the amount of interest is deposited, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the appellants – original claimants through RTGS/NEFT, after due verification. 9.2 The amount already deposited by the Insurance Company and lying before the learned Commissioner, the same is to be disbursed in favour of the appellants – original claimant s through RTGS/NEFT, after due verification. 10. Accordingly, the First Appeal as well as the Cross Objection are party allowed. No order as to costs. 10.1 In view of the disposal of the main First Appeal, the connected civil application also stands disposed of. 11. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.