IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 MFA.No. 290 of 2009() --------------------- WCC.61/2005 of W.C.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT: 2ND OPPOSITE PARTY --------------------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KALAMASSERY,NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS: APPLICANT AND IST OPPOSITE PARTY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.BINU, S/O.KUMARAN, KANNAMPILLY HOUSE, KACHERIPPADY, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. 2. P.C.THOMAS & COMPANY, 35/1409 A1, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025. ADV. SRI.T.MADHU FOR R1 SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON FOR R1 SRI. SURAJ KRISHNAN THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.F.A.(W.C.Act) No. 290 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th September, 2011 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph J., The second opposite party/insurer in a proceeding under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is the appellant herein. The compensation has been awarded by the Commissioner with interest. 2. The only question of law which is raised before us and argued before us relates to the liability of the appellant to pay interest. According to the learned senior counsel for the appellant, the appellant is not liable to pay interest as per the provisions stated in the Policy. Learned counsel for the employer does not dispute that there is a clause by which the insurer is exempted from the M.F.A. No. 290 of 2009 :2: liability to pay interest. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the employer is that there is a delay and when there is delay the employer cannot be made liable. The learned counsel submits if it is otherwise what is the purpose of taking insurance. Learned senior counsel for the appellant, in this matter of fact, submits that the appellant settled the claim for a sum of Rs.13,910/-. The matter was pending before the Commissioner and we notice in this case that the Commissioner has ordered the appellant to pay interest only from 8.1.2008, which is the date of disability certificate. 3. The fact there is delay on account of the matter being pending before the Commissioner cannot be a reason for the employer to shift the liability from it to the insurer in view of the express contract between the employer and the insurer. 4. In such circumstances, we allow the appeal and delete the direction that the appellant will be liable to pay interest. Instead we direct that the first opposite party/ second respondent in this appeal, shall be liable to pay interest as ordered. M.F.A. No. 290 of 2009 :3: 5. In case any amount paid by the appellant towards interest, it can be withdrawn by the appellant. K.M.JOSEPH, (JUDGE) M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/