In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.4785 of 2009 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:19.10.2011 State of Haryana and others .....Appellants v. Savitri and others .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. Rajeev Kwatra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. Mr. Rakesh Lathwal, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. The appellants-State have preferred this appeal against the order/award dated 6.5.2008 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Circle, Sonepat-I (hereinafter referred to as `the Commissioner') whereby claimants of workman Sonu (deceased), who had been working as a labourer in the Forest Department (appellant) were held entitled to the compensation to the tune of `2,88,634/-. The appellants were directed to deposit the amount of compensation along F.A.O. No.4785 of 2009 (O&M) [2] with simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the awarded amount from the date of accident till the date of payment within 30 days. The workman Sonu aged about 18 years, was working as a labourer with the appellants and was getting `85/- per day (`2,550/- per month). On 28.8.2003, Sonu was doing the work of plantation at Ahulana- Meham road near Sarvodya Public School, near the drain along with some other labourers. As the rain had started, Sonu and other labourers took shelter under a tree. Suddenly thunder bolt occurred and fell on the person of Sonu due to which he sustained fatal injuries on his person and died at the spot and his companion Sansar also died in the said incident. DDR No.14 dated 28.8.2003 in this regard got recorded with Police Station Baroda and it was submitted that Sonu expired while discharging his duties under the appellants. The appellants admitted that Sonu was working as a labourer and that he (Sonu) was getting wages of `85/- per day. Under the circumstances, the Commissioner awarded compensation to the tune of `2,88,634/- to the claimants vide award/order dated 6.5.2008. In view of the admitted position that the deceased- workman was an employee of appellants No.2 and 3 and died during the course of employment while doing plantation due to thunder bolt, I do not see any ground warranting interference in the impugned award so far as award of compensation to the dependents of the workman is concerned as the amount of compensation i.e. `2,88,634/- is not at all on the excessive side. However, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1 SCC 289 and Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and others, (1997) 8 SCC 1, the F.A.O. No.4785 of 2009 (O&M) [3] claimants-respondents would be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 9 per cent instead of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment. I order accordingly. The impugned award is modified to the extent the interest is payable to the claimants. With the above modification in the impugned award, this appeal is hereby dismissed. October 19, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*