FAO (WCA) 163 of 2005. 4.12.2009 Present: Mr. K.D.Sood with Mr. Sanjeev Sood, counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award of the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Theog, District Shimla, awarding a sum of Rs.5,22,510/- as compensation to the claimant who is the mother of the deceased workman. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the proper application of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the income of deceased Bablu has been correctly determined at Rs.2000/- and the relevant factor properly applied in working out the compensation of Rs.4,50,440/-. 2. Whether on a proper construction of the policy of the insurance company, the appellant was not liable to pay interest. 3. Whether the findings of the Commissioner are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence and the inference that the deceased was 19 years of age and his monthly wages were Rs.4000/- per month, are sustainable in law. Taking up question No. 2 first, that -2- is, whether the Insurance Company was liable to pay interest or not, the case is now squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kamla Chaturvedi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2009 ACJ 115, holding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay this amount. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that irrespective of this judgment, if there is an exclusionary clause in the Insurance Policy, that would be sufficient to exonerate it from the liability to pay interest and such interest would be payable by the owner. Having gone through the record of the case and more especially Ex. RW-2/C which is the Insurance Policy, I do not find any exclusionary clause. This submission therefore cannot be accepted. Taking up substantial questions 1 and 3, both these questions relate to the working out of the factual data, that is the income of the deceased. I do not find any misreading of evidence on record. In fact the Commissioner while determining compensation relied upon the evidence of RW-1 that the deceased was being paid Rs.4000/- per month. This appeal is accordingly rejected. Pending applications shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. December 4, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.