@ 2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased ‘Ramkumar was working under theemployment of appellant as driver. On 07-04‘ ‘ 2004, the deceased Ramkumar died in an accident atose out of \ and during the course of empioyment. The claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 preferred the claim before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur. The appellant appeared before the Commissioner and denied his liability to pay any compensation to respondents No.1 to 3. It was further pleaded that the liability if any, is of the respondent No.4/lnsurance Company as the vehicle (Tanker) was insured with respondent No.4/lnsurance Company at the time of accident. The learned Commissioner on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made held that the accident arose out of and during the course of employment; assessed monthly income of the deceased Ramkumar as Rs.4,000/- per month; deducted 50% of it towards personal expenses of the deceased and thus awarded Rs.3,94,120/- as compensation holding the appellant and respondent No.4/lnsurance Company liable for its payment. Learned Commissioner also awarded Rs.10,000/- as penalty H under Section 4-A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and interest at bank rate from the date of application till its payment against the appellant only. 3. The appellant, feeling aggrieved by the part of the award, whereby and whereunder the appellant was made liable for payment of penalty and interest, preferred'thls appeal. 4. The appeal was admitted for hearing on following substantial question of law : ’Whether learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to pay interest part of the award?” 5. Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that although in view of the decision of the Supreme /\ ‘x, R (5d Court in case Of in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Ammtbhai Modhiyar and Another reported in (2006) 5 SCC ‘192, the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of penalty and penalty part 'of the ward has to be paid by the appellant but so far as interest part of the award is concerned, since the policy of insurance is a motor vehicle policy, therefore, the interest part of the award is certainly payable by respondent No.4/lnsurance Company and learned Commissioner has erred in fastening the liability of payment of- lnterest part of the award upon the appellantjemployer. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4/lnsuracne Company supported the award and submitted that teamed Commissioner has rightly fastened the liability to pay interest upon the appellant. 7. i have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the award impugned. 8. The issue involved in the present case for decision making is whether the amount of interest awarded by the Commissioner is payable by the employer or by the insurance Company in, a policy issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. The Supreme Court in case of Kamla Chaturvedi vs. National Insurance Company and others; reported in 2009 (1) SCC 487 observed in para 7 & 8 as under: 7. ln Ved Prakash Gary v. Premi Devi (1 997) 8 SCC 1 this court observed that the insurance Company is iiable to pay not only the principal amount of compensation payable by the insurer employet but also interest thereon if ordered by the Commissioner to be paid to the insured employee. The insurance company is liable to meet the claim for compensation along with interest as imposed on the insurer employer by the Act on conjoint operation of Sections 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. , 8.~- in New India Assurance Co. case, Ved Prakash Gargecase (supra) was distinguished on facts. it was W 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‘). “19 ...........a contract of insurance is govemed by the provisions of the Insurance Act. 1938 (in short ‘the Insurance Act’), uniess the said contract is governed by the provisionsof a statute, the parties are free to enter into a contract as (per) their own voiition. The Act does not contain a provision like Section 147 of the MV Act. Where a statute does not providefor a compulsory insurance or the extent thereof, ......the parties are free to choose their own terms of contract. ln that View of the matter contracting out, so far as (the) reimbursement of amount of interest is concemed, ..... is not prohibited by a statute”. (New India Assurance Co. case SCC p. 198, para 19). "This position has been reiterated in P.J. Narayan v.Union of India and others; reported in ((2006) 5 SCC 200). ln the instant case me 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. case (supra) was stipulated in the policy of insurance. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the interest.“ 10. In case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Harshadbhai Ammtbhai Modhiya and Anomer (supra), the Supreme Court was not concemed 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 (m short the ‘M.V. Act'). 11. By applying the legal proposition of law as enunciated, by the dicta of Supreme Court in above referred cases in the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that the accident in question arose on account of vehicular accident and policy issued is under the provisions of Motor Vehicles" Act, and therefore, l am of the considered opinion that the insurance company although not liable to indemnify the insured against the amount of penalty imposed against the employer but is certainly liable to indemnify the employer/appellant against the part of award by which interest has been‘awarded by the learned Commissioner. \‘ a‘ « FI‘. 12. in view of the above, the appeal is auowed in part. It is held that the respondent No.4/lnsuranoe Company is also jointly 7 and severeiy iiabie to pay interest to the respondents/claimants as awarded by iearned Commissioner. in order to avoid any future dispute with regard to rate of interest of scheduled bank, l propose to award interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its payment. ‘Three months' time from today is granted to the'respondent. No.4/insurance Company to I deposit the interest part of the award with ieamed‘ Commissioner. Sd/_ N.K.Agarwa1 Judge Kvr Li! l