JUDGMENT
N. K. Jain, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur dated 28.2.1989 by which he has awarded Rs. 63,406.00 as compensation.
2. The only grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Commissioner has erred in not awarding interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim and the respondents may be directed to pay the same.
3. Mr. N.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 has submitted that as the compensation has already been paid question or payment of interest does not arise.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
5. In Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and Anr. 1976 ACJ 141, it has been held that it was the duty of the appellant under Section 4A(1) of the Act to pay the compensation at the rate provided by Section 4 as soon as the personal injury was caused to the respondent.
6. In Shankarlal v. General Manager, Central Railway. Bombay 1990 ACJ 1028, it has been held that section 4A of the Act is mandatory and is in clear terms, which lays down that employer is bound to deposit the compensation as soon as it falls due under section 4 of the Act, within one month from the date of accident.
7. In Kanaram v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Anr. 1989 ACJ 1018, the Court allowed interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of making of application till realisation.
8. Admittedly in the instant case the vehicle bearing No. RST – 4217 was insured with the Insurance Company. The insurance policy is on record which was issued by the non-petitioner. By this policy RST-4217 Ambassador Car was insured in favour of its owner Pradeep Deora hypothecated with the Bank of Raj. Ltd. Jodhpur from 18.11.86 to 12.11.87. The deceased Ganga Prasad was the driver of said vehicle and while he was going on 1.3.87 from Jaipur to Ah-medabad he met with an accident and lost his life. The policy shows that additional premium was paid besides basic premium and the condition No. 16 leaves no manner of doubt that it is the liability of the insurance company as the Company has ac-quired to indemnify the insured employer Pradeep Deora for his liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of personal injury to his driver. Therefore, the non petitioner is also liable to pay interest in view of Section 4A and Sub-section (5) of Section 95 of the Act and as per endorsement No. 16. Therefore, as discussed above and in view of the case law, in my opinion the learned Commissioner has erred in not awarding interest at least at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the compensation.
9. No other point has been pressed before me.
10. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Commissioner is modified to the extent that the appellant is entitled to get interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the compensation awarded from the date of filing of the claim till realisation from non-petitioner No. 2. The non-petitioner No. 2 is directed to pay the amount of interest within one month from today along with cost of Rs. 500/- of this appeal.