FAO No. 4202 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4202 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.2.2011 Smt. Bhagwati and others .. Appellant v. Sh. Girraj and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 1. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present appeal filed by the dependents of deceased-Surender is for enhancement of compensation as assessed by the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, `the Act'). Along with the appeal, application seeking condonation of delay of 59 days in filing thereof has also been filed. Briefly, the facts are that deceased-Surender, who was employed as driver with respondent No. 1 on jeep bearing No. HR-38L- 6799, suffered grievous injuries in a road accident on 13.6.2006. He was shifted to Sarvodaya Hospital, Old Faridabad and thereafter to Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi. However, he succumbed to the injuries on 17.6.2006. His age was claimed as 24 years and salary as ` 3,600/- per month. The Commissioner assessed the compensation at ` 3,87,504/-. They were further held entitled to interest @ 12% per annum in case of failure to pay the compensation within 2 months from the date of order. FAO No. 4202 of 2009 [2] Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the amount of compensation, as has been assessed by the Commissioner, is not just and fair. The parameters, which were required to be considered, had been ignored. The age of the deceased was not taken correct, as claimed. He further submitted that penalty should also be imposed on account of failure of the employer to pay the compensation immediately after the accident. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that just and fair compensation has been assessed by the Commissioner in terms of the provisions of the Act taking the age and salary of the deceased, as claimed by them. As far as levy of penalty is concerned, he submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, levy of penalty is not called for, as the appellants have been held entitled to payment of interest. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The appellants claimed the age of the deceased as 24 years and the salary at ` 3,600/- per month. In terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, for the purpose of assessment of compensation, 50% of the monthly salary is taken and the same is to be multiplied with the factor as provided for in Schedule IV thereof, considering the age of the deceased. The Commissioner, in the present case, has assessed the compensation at ` 3,87,504/-. If the salary of the deceased is taken, as is claimed by the appellants, i.e., ` 3,600/- per month, for the purpose of assessment of compensation, ` 1,800/- is to be multiplied with the factor considering the age of the deceased. The Commissioner has assessed the compensation by taking the age as 25 years. To prove the age of the deceased, the appellants had produced before the Commissioner only the ration card, which cannot be said to be a definite proof of age of any person. The Commissioner has taken the age as 25 years as against 24 years, claimed by the appellants. On the basis of the evidence produced on record, this court cannot record a definite finding regarding the age of the deceased as per the claim of the appellants. Accordingly, as far as enhancement of compensation is concerned, no case is made out. FAO No. 4202 of 2009 [3] As far as interest and penalty is concerned, in my opinion, the appellants have been adequately compensated. The case in hand is not one, where penalty was required to be imposed. Interest has already been awarded. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 9.2.2011 mk