( 1 ) THE appellants had preferred the present civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order passed in W. C. No. 89 of 1998 dated 27-3-2002 on the file of the Commissioner for workmen s Compensation, Kurnool aggrieved by the facts that the interest of 12% per annum was not awarded from the date of accident till the date of realization even though the amount was deposited in 30 days. The factual aspects need not be gone into elaborately since the facts are not in dispute and the operative portion of the order in W. C. No. 89 of 1998 reads as follows:"the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the total amount of rs. 2,13,570/- (Two lakhs thirteen thousand and five hundred and seventy rupees only) by way of demand draft drawn on State Bank of india, Kurnool in favour of the commissioner for Workmen s compensation, Kurnool within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order. If they fail to deposit the awarded amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, they have to pay an interest at the rate 6% P. A. from the date of order to the date of realization, in addition to the penalty that may be imposed under Sec. 4-A (3) of the Workmen s Compensation Act 1923. "

( 2 ) THE appellants aggrieved of negativing the relief of interest of 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization had preferred the present appeal.

( 3 ) SRI Gopal, the learned counsel representing the appellants had placed strong reliance on Sasidharan v. State of kerala, Surendra Prabhu v. Sripadaro shankararao Patil, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ningactiari and also on L. R. Ferror Alloys ltd. v. Mahavir Mahto and had contended that in view of the said decisions the insurance Company is liable to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization.

( 4 ) PER contra. Sri Naram Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent insurance Company had made elaborate submissions and had drawn my attention to section 4-A of the Workmen s compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) prior to the amendment and subsequent to the amendment and also had pointed out that in the light of the language of Section 4-A of the Act, the interest need not be awarded from the date of accident. In view of the fact that some time limit is prescribed for preferring the claim under Section 10 of the act, the interest can be awarded from the date of presentation of the claim till the date of realization. The learned counsel further had drawn my attention to the language employed in Section 4-A (3) (a) of the Act and had contended that in view of the words"at such higher rate in exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank". It was contended that in view of the schedule bank, interest rate being only 9%, 9% alone is payable and the claim of 12% interest cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also had placed strong reliance on General Manager and others v. Sangum Bhagyamma in this regard.

( 5 ) HEARD both the learned counsels.

( 6 ) THE only question that had been argued by both the learned counsel is relating to the payment of interest. The claim is made under the Act and no doubt the claim was allowed but, however, 12% interest from the date of accident till the date of realization had not been granted. In l. R. Ferror Alloys Ltd. s case (supra), the apex Court held that the Insurance company is liable to pay interest along with the amount of compensation under the Act since the liability to pay interest is part and parcel of legal liability to pay compensation upon default of payment within one month. The decision in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi devi had been relied on. No doubt, the same view was expressed in the Sasidharan s case and Surendra Prabhu s case (1 and 2 supra ). In General Manager and others case while dealing with the rate of interest under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Full Bench of this Court had arrived at a conclusion that the ra