FAO No. 525 of 1989 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 525 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision : 31.1.2011 Smt. Kasturi Devi and others ..... Appellants vs The Haryana Roadways and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Abhey Pal Singh Gill, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. The claim made by the dependents of deceased Shiv Kumar in the present appeal is regarding award of higher rate of interest and imposition of penalty on the respondents. Briefly the facts are that the husband of appellant no. 2, namely, Shiv Kumar (since deceased), was employed as Conductor with the Haryana Roadways. He expired on 6.7.1987 while on duty. The compensation to the dependents of the deceased under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act') having not been paid, they approached the Workman's Compensation Commissioner, Patiala (for short, 'the Commissioner'). The amount of compensation of ` 79,760/- was awarded to them. It was directed to be paid to the appellants along with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of accident i.e. 6.7.1987. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the amount of interest awarded to the appellants is on lower side and further that penalty which was leviable as per provisions of Section 4-A of the Act was not levied on the respondents. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The award of interest @ 6% per annum in the year 1987-89 cannot be stated to be on lower side. The maximum rate of interest under Section 4-A of the Act is 12% per annum. Accordingly, the claim for increase of rate of interest cannot be accepted. FAO No. 525 of 1989 (2) As far as levy of penalty is concerned, the same will not be to the benefit of the claimants because at the relevant time, the amount of penalty, in terms of provisions of the Act, was to be deposited with the State. Accordingly, even the claim to that extent is also rejected. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed. 31.1.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge