1. The 1st respondent had filed an application under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, Commissioner, 1923, claiming compensation from the 2nd respondent and the appellant, in respect of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 13.10.2005. The 2nd respondent is the owner of Maxi cab Tempo traveler bearing registration No.KA-05-B-3731, which had been insured by the appellant, as on 13.10.2005. The 1st respondent was employed by the 2nd respondent as a driver to drive the said vehicle. An accident involving the said vehicle occurred on 13.10.2005 and the 1st respondent sustained injuries, which arose out of and in the course of his employment. Though injuries were sustained and there was partial permanent disability resulting in loss of earning capacity, the 2nd respondent/employer, who was liable to pay compensation, did not pay the compensation, which resulted in an application being filed before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, against the 2nd respondent and the appellant.

2. To the application, the 2nd respondent filed statement dated 18.02.2009, wherein he admitted the jural relationship, the occurrence of the accident, sustaining of injuries by the employee and the vehicle having been insured by the appellant with policy No.072300/31/04/08696 for the period from 23.03.2005 to 22.03.2006. However, the quantum of compensation claimed was questioned. The appellant filed its statement of objections on 08.11.2006 and contested the claim.

3. Issues were framed. The applicant deposed. He also examined Dr. S. Ramachandra, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Bowring & Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 were marked. No rebuttal evidence was adduced by the insured and insurer. Noticing that, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident there is partial permanent disability sustained by the employment/applicant, the claim application was allowed in part and an award for Rs.1,31,082/-with interest at 12% from 13.11.2005 was passed. This appeal is directed against the said award.

4. Sri. Arun Ponappa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that, the Commissioner is not justified in awarding interest at 12% p.a. on the compensation amount w.e.f. 13.11.2005 and the date from which the interest was awarded is contrary to the law laid down in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Mohammed Nasir & Others, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 3717. Learned counsel submits that the compensation amount cannot ‘fail due’ so long as the same is not assessed as held in the case of Kamla Chaturvedi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2009 ACJ 115 (SC). According to the learned counsel, the interest on the award amount becomes payable only from the date the compensation amount is assessed and ordered by the Commissioner. Learned counsel placed reliance also on the decision in the case of Pal Raj Vs. N.E.K.R.T.C. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 347.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/claimant, on the other hand by placing reliance on the decision in the case of Sri. Aleemudin & Others Vs. Divisional Manager, M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Gulbarga, reported in ILR 2009 Kar 1422, contended that, the liability to pay interest will arise with the expiry of 30 days period from the date of accident in view of the provisions contained in S.4-A(3) of the Act and the Commissioner is justified in directing payment of compensation with interest w.e.f. 13.11.2005, since the accident in question occurred on 13.10.2005. Learned counsel submits that, the matter being squarely covered by the decision on which the reliance was placed by him, the impugned judgment and award being in consonance therewith, the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law for consideration.

6. In view of the rival contentions and the record of the case which I have perused, the question that arises for determination in this appeal is:

What should be the starting point fo