IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 MFA.No. 23 of 2007() -------------------- WCC.8/2001 of W.C.C.,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT: 1ST OPPOSITE PARTY -------------------------------- THE MANAGER, RAJAGIRI RUBBER & PRODUCE COMPANY LTD., SHALIACARA ESTATE, SHALIACARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS RESPONDENTS: APPLICANT/2ND OPPOSITE PARTY ------------------------------------------- 1. MARY, W/O KUTTY, PUTHUVEL PUTHEN VEEDU, KOOTHANADY, PLACHERY P.O., PUNALUR. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., POST BOX NO.3806, ALAPUZHA 688 010. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY FOR R2 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.F.A. (W.C.C. Act) No.23 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph J., The appellant is the first opposite party in a claim under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act laid by the first respondent herein, who claimed compensation on account of injury. The Commissioner directed payment of Rs.14,035/-. The said amount was directed to be paid by the 2nd respondent/ Insurer. However, the appellant was also made liable to pay 12% interest from the date of accident. 2. The appellant/ employer challenges the direction by the Commissioner to pay the interest by it. According to it there is no M.F.A. No.23 of 2007 :2: contention taken by the insurer that the insurer is not liable to pay the interest. No issue was framed and according to it there is no provision in the policy by which the insurer is exempted the liability to pay the interest. 3. We heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant presses his contention. Learned counsel also contended that at any rate the liability to pay the interest should not have been cast on him from the date of accident. We are of the view that the appellant is correct in contending that the Commissioner ought not to have directed the appellant to pay the interest. Apparently there is no contention raised by the Insurer that it is not liable to pay the interest. No provision on the Contract of Insurance exists to contend that there is exclusion of liability to pay interest. 5. In such circumstances, we agree that the appellant ought not have been made liable to pay the interest. Accordingly this Appeal is allowed. The order is modified to the extent that we M.F.A. No.23 of 2007 :3: order that the 2nd respondent/United India Insurance Co. Ltd will be liable to pay the interest as ordered in place of the appellant. K.M.JOSEPH, (JUDGE) M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/