In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... CM No.6825-CII of 2011 and F.A.O. No.2118 of 2011 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:15.11.2011 National Insurance Company Ltd. .....Appellant v. Vijay Sahni and another .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. B.S. Taunque, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the respondents. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. CM No.6825-CII of 2011: For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 5 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned. F.A.O. No.2118 of 2011 (O&M): National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the Insurance Company') has preferred this appeal against the order/award dated 23.11.2010 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Yamuna Nagar-I whereby Vijay Sahni F.A.O. No.2118 of 2011 (O&M) [2] (claimant-respondent No.1) injured-workman, who had been employed to work on the machine by its owner (respondent No.2) was held entitled to the compensation to the tune of `68,625/- from the respondents jointly and severally. He was further awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the amount of award one month from the date of accident i.e. 1.3.2007 which was payable by respondent No.1 being employer and not by respondent No.2 (appellant). However, at the time of issuance of notice of motion by this Court on 11.3.2001, it was recorded as under:- “Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in terms of the policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any interest upto the date of order passed by the Commissioner. In the present case, interest has been awarded to respondent No.1 (claimant) from the date of filing of the application. Notice of motion for 18.5.2011. In the meantime, payment of interest from the date of application till the date of order of the Commissioner by the appellant-Insurance Company shall remain stayed. This Court is constrained to observe that even though name of the Act was changed from Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 vide amendment carried on 18.1.2010, but still even the Commissioner working under the Act is still mentioning the same to be Workmen's Compensation Act.” A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner shows that the F.A.O. No.2118 of 2011 (O&M) [3] liability to pay the interest has been fastened on respondent No.1 being the employer and not on the respondent No.2 (appellant herein) i.e. the Insurance Company. So the appeal is liable to be dismissed as having rendered infructuous. Ordered accordingly. November 15, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*