JUDGMENT :

K.M. Thaker, J.

All these appeals, viz. the First Appeal Nos. 4085 and 4086 of 2009 and 3830 to 3840 of 2006, arise from the same incident/accident i.e. cyclone which devastated coastal areas in the State of Gujarat on 9th June, 1998. The claimants/victims in the claim cases Nos. 37 and 35 of 2000, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 38, 39, 40, 46 and 47 of 2005 and 2 of 2006 are the labourers commonly known as "Agariyas" working on the premises of the opponent No. 1-New Kandla Sault & Chemical Company Private Ltd. The appellant herein was the insurance company who held the insurance taken out by the opponent employer in respect of its workmen being the workmen compensation policy number was 412116011104. The policy was taken out for 40 contract labourers.

2. Since the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 did not pay the compensation to the victims/their heirs or legal representatives as required under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], the claimants filed the above referred workmen compensation cases before the learned Commissioner, Kutch at Gandhidham. Upon conclusion of the proceedings, the learned Commissioner passed the impugned award allowing the claims made by the claimants and awarded the amount as under :-

3. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant insurance company is before this court. It has challenged the award to the limited extent whereby the liability of payment of interest and penalty is fastened upon the insurance company. The appellant insurance company has raised a contention that in view of the provisions contained under the Act and the scheme of the Act, the insurance company does not have any liability or obligation to pay interest and/or penalty. It is also contended that in the cases on hand, the policy expressly excluded the obligation to pay any amount towards interest and/or penalty and therefore also, the learned Commissioner is not right or justified in imposing the said burden on the insurance company.

4. Per contra, the claimants have contended that the learned Commissioner has not committed any error in quantifying and in directing payment of interest and/or penalty. The opponent No. 1, the principal employer, has also contended that it had immediately informed the insurance company about the incident/accident and that therefore, the delay in payment is wholly attributable to the insurance company. Consequently, the liability has been rightly imposed on the insurance company.

5. Heard Mr. Sunil B. Parikh, learned advocate for Mr. K.V. Gadhia, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. J.K. Parmar, learned advocate for the respondent.

6. The appellant insurance company has placed a copy of the insurance policy on record. The relevant clause of the insurance policy, reads thus:-

"Law(S)

1. The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and subsequent amendments of the said Act prior to the date of the issue of Policy. 2 The Fatal Accid