The insurance company is liable for payment of interest on the amount of compensation unless it has expressly stipulated its non-liability for the payment of interest.

JUDGMENT

P.K. Jaiswal, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') challenging the order dated 12.9.2000 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation No. 2, Gwaiior in Case No. 1 of 1995-W.C.A. (Fatal).

2. (a) In M.A. No. 734 of 2000 filed by the insurance company, Badri Prasad Tiwari, aged 20 years, husband of Ranidevi, respondent No. 1, died in a vehicular accident on 28.3.1994. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are widow and son of the deceased respectively. The respondent No. 3 is the wife of the respondent No. 2. They filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. The Commissioner by the impugned order has awarded an amount of Rs. 81,864 as compensation plus penalty of Rs. 40,000 on delay in paying the compensation and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation. Learned Commissioner held that the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 being the owner and driver of the vehicle respectively are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount along with interest but exonerated the appellant insurance company from payment of penalty and directed the respondent No. 4 to pay the amount of penalty.

(b) Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that salary of the deceased was Rs. 1,500 per month and he specifically stated this fact in para 2 of his written statement. Vilyati Ram Suri, NAW 1, in para 1 of his statement has deposed that salary of the deceased was Rs. 1,500 per month. This witness in para 2 of his cross-examination admitted that he has not filed any document to prove that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 1,500 per month. It is also admitted by him that he is maintaining the attendance register, salary slip and register regarding payment of salary to the deceased. But, those documents were not filed and, therefore, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation after appreciating all the evidence of the parties rightly came to the conclusion that income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000 per month. The said finding recorded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation is based on appreciation of evidence on record and, therefore, No. interference in this appeal is warranted. On perusal of the record, I found that the claimants in para 11 of the claim petition stated that the amount of compensation was not paid in time and, therefore, they are entitled for penalty as per Section 4-A of the Act. On this question, issue No. 2 was framed. Vilyati Ram Suri, NAW 1, in his statement admitted that amount of compensation has not been deposited in time. In this appeal the plea of the learned Counsel for the appellant that No. liberty was given before imposing the penalty cannot be accepted because in the claim petition, the claimant specifically prayed for grant of penalty. The appellants after receipt of claim petition submitted their reply, the owner was also examined by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. The learned Commissioner after giving the opportunity to the parties passed an order imposing interest and penalty and, therefore, it cannot be said that order was passed without giving any opportunity to the appellant.

(c) Learned Counsel for the insurance company drew my attention to the pleadings of the parties, statement of Sriram Tiwari, AW 2; Pratipal Singh Sandhu, DW 1 and submitted that petrol pump is in the name of father of the respondent No. 1 and as per policy, Exh. Dl, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. Pratipal Singh Sandhu, DW 1, in para 1 of his statement very categorically admitted that he was owner of the petrol pump and at present petrol pump is closed. This witness further admitted that in the year 1993, licence was granted to him for installation of petrol pump. The petrol pump was opened in the year 1994. The appellant and respondent No. 4 denied that on the date of accident, deceased Badri Prasad was wo