FAO No.23 of 2009. 24.04.2009 Present: Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. J.S. Bagga, Advocate for respondent No.5. In the impugned award passed by the Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh in case No.13/Compen/07 titled Smt. Jagrano Devi and others versus M/S Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd. and another, dated 14.11.2008, the Commissioner, to my mind has returned contradictory findings. The same is evident from paras 6 and 7 of the award which are reproduced as under:- “6. Respondent No.1 M/s Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd. has in their reply stated that he had got his vehicle No-DL-01-VA- 3586 insured with respondent No-2 and in support of this they have submitted Ext-R-2 copy of insurance policy in which it is clearly mentioned that respondent No-1 M/s Coastal Project Pvt. Ltd. had insured their vehicle No-DL-01-VA-3586 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Although respondent No-2 has denied this but failed to prove it by any oral or documentary evidence. Hence respondent No-2 OIC being principal employer is to pay the amount of compensation. In order to get this amount indemnified by respondent No-1 under this act respondent No-2 is entitled to file petition under section 12(2) of this act. 7. The principal amount of compensation calculated by keeping in view that wages of Late Sanjeet Kumar were Rs.4000/- per month and his age was 34 years the principal amount of compensation to be paid by respondent No-2 by multiplying 2000(taken as half the monthly wages as per section 4(1)(b)(II) multiplied by relevant fact or 199.40 given in schedule IV comes to Rs.398800/-. Interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 26-08-2007 on this amount for one year three months comes to Rs.59820/- total compensation amount comes to Rs.458620/-. Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit this amount within 30 days of this order. If they failed to deposit this amount within this period penalty amounting to 25% of Rs.458620/- will be paid by them.” Whereas in paragraph 6 the Commissioner has held the principal employer, respondent No.2-insurer to have indemnified the insured, but in para 7, a direction has been given to recover the awarded amount of compensation from the insured, present appellant. After the matter ws heard for some time, learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that this part of the findings of the Tribunal be set aside and the matter remanded back, on the limited point of liability, to the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Chamba for fresh decision. Matter is remanded back to the Commissioner Workmen, Chamba. Case No.13/Compen/07 shall be taken up by him on 26th of May, 2009 when the parties undertake to appear before him. Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Chamba shall decide the matter on or before 30th of June, 2009. With these observations the present petition stands disposed of. It is clarified that the question of maintainability of the claimants’ petition and their entitlement to the awarded compensation has been left open. CMP No.52 of 2009 also stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), April 24, 2009. Judge. (sck)