IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No.62 of 2004. Date of decision: 05.08.2008. Parma Nand & Others …Appellants Versus Leela Devi & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellants: Mr.Shashi Bhushan, Advocate. For Respondents 1&2: Mr.Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For respondent No.3: Mr.B.M. Chauhan, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. At the time of admission, in this appeal the substantial question of law on which it was admitted was not indicated. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that question No.2:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case in hand, the Ld.Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was justified by imposing the entire interest on the present appellants?” requires to be considered in this appeal. The short point for consideration in this appeal is whether employer is liable to pay interest 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 on the awarded amount or it has to be paid by the Insurance Company. The Commissioner, on Issue No.3 has imposed the liability on the employer holding, “the delay in deciding matter was happened due to the wrong act & pleadings on the part of respondents No.1 & 2, therefore, the interest as calculated Rs.61,936/- is worth recoverable from them. Hence this issue is also replies accordingly”. This is hardly satisfactory way of dealing with a case. The fact as to whether the interest is payable by the Insurance Company or employer, has already been decided by the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg vs. Premi Devi & Others, 1998 ACJ 1 followed by this Court in Satya Devi Sharma & Others vs. Megh Pal and another, 2002 ACJ 2104. The insurance policy does not contain an exclusionary clause absolving it from paying the interest on the awarded amount. This fact has been accepted by all the parties to this petition. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner is modified. It is directed that the interest made recoverable from the employer-appellant shall be payable by the Insurance Company. There shall be no order as to costs. August 5, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.