The liability for interest on compensation rests with the insured owner, not the insurance company, due to failure to inform the insurer.

1. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle seeking modification of the judgment and award dated 10.2.2012 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Koppal ('the Commissioner' for short).

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - insurance company.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment and award of the Commissioner is not in accordance with law. Insofar as passing the award directing the appellant to pay interest on the award amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum after 30 days from the date of accident till the deposit of the award amount, the Commissioner failed to take into consideration oral and documentary evidence on record. It is contended that the payment of interest should be made by the insurance company and not by the owner - insured. Further, the Commissioner has not raised any point for consideration as to the payment of interest. However, it has wrongly passed the judgment and award and directed the appellant - owner to pay interest to the claimant. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision in the case of Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi , 1998 ACJ 1 (SC), in support of his contention.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - insurance company supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Commissioner and submits that the appellant - owner has not placed any evidence with regard to shifting the responsibility on the insurance company especially on the interest portion. Insofar as direction to pay interest is concerned, the Commissioner has rightly come to the conclusion that as per the general condition of policy, the owner - appellant was required to pay compensation immediately to the claimant and should intimate the insurance company about the accident in question. However, due to failure on the part of the appellant - owner to inform insurance company, the Commissioner has saddled the liability on the owner to pay interest on the compensation, which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 relied upon the decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya , 2006 ACJ 1699 (SC).

8. In view of the submission made by both the learned counsel the following point that would arise for court's consideration in this appeal is as under:

Whether appellant proved that respondent No. 2 - insurance company is liable to pay interest on the compensation amount?

9. It is not in dispute that on the relevant date, time and place the accident occurred and the claimant Khaja Hussain sustained injuries. There is no dispute that the claimant was working in the rice mill of the appellant - insured and was drawing salary in a sum of Rs.6,000 per month.

10. The only short point involved in this case is, whether the owner - insured is liable or whether the insurance company is liable to pay interest on the compensation amount.

11. The moot question is whether the insurance coverage as available to the insured employer - owner of the motor vehicle in relation to his liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act , on account of motor accident injuries caused to his workmen would include additional statutory liability foisted on the insured - employer under S.4A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act .

12. In L. R. Ferror Alloys Ltd. v. Mahavir Maht