IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 75 of 2010 Date of decision : 10.08.2011. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. …Appellant. Versus Pushpa Sharma and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 to 4: Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent No. 5: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal was admitted on 2.7.2010. At the time of admission of the appeal substantial questions of law were not framed. In my opinion, only two questions of law arise for decision in this case which are as follows:- 1. Whether the Insurance Company-appellant is liable to pay the interest on the awarded amount under the Workmen’s Compensation Act? 2. Whether the learned Commissioner below is justified in observing that the penalty will be imposed in the event of failure to deposit the awarded amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy? 2. As far as the first question is concerned, the Insurance Company has failed to lead any evidence to show that under the terms of the Insurance Policy it was not liable to 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes. 2 pay the interest. The Apex Court in a number of judgements has held that if the Insurance Company wants to avoid the payment of interest it must show that under the terms of the policy it was not liable to pay the interest. This having not been done, the Insurance Company cannot escape the liability to pay interest. 3. However, as far as the second question is concerned, the Apex Court in Ved Prakash Garg vs. Premi Devi and others 1998 (1) ACJ 1 has clearly held that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the penalty. There is nothing on record to show that the Insurance Company had entered into a contract agreeing to pay the penalty. Therefore, the penalty could not have been imposed upon the Insurance Company and to that extent the award is liable to be set-aside. 4. In view of the above discussion, the award of the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation is modified to the limited extent that the Insurance Company shall not be held liable to pay the penalty. No costs. 10th August, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.