FAO No. 1069 of 1989 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1069 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.1.2011 Joginder Singh and others .. Appellants v. Mr. Partap Singh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. Manisha Setia, Advocate for Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the appellants. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The claimants are in appeal before this court impugning the order passed by the then Workmen's Compensation Commissioner (for short, `the Commissioner'), whereby on account of the death of Mohinder Singh, compensation along with interest was directed to be paid to the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that income of the deceased in the present case was not in dispute, however, still the Commissioner has not considered the fact that parents, two brothers and two sisters were dependent upon him. She further submitted that the Commissioner was very conservative in awarding the amount of interest, which should have been upto date of payment. Further prayer was for levy of penalty on the respondents. No one has appeared for the respondents. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Admittedly, the salary of the deceased, aged 21 years, in the present case was ` 900/- per month. In terms of the provisions of Section 4 and Schedule IV in the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, `the Act'), the learned Commissioner after taking 40% FAO No. 1069 of 1989 [2] of the salary and applying a factor of 222.71, which is prescribed in case the workman was of 21 years of age, assessed the compensation at ` 80,175.60, which is strictly in terms of the provisions of the Act and cannot be faulted with. As far as grant of interest is concerned, a perusal of the order shows that interest @ 12% per annum has been awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition till its decision. In addition to the amount of interest, a sum of ` 1,000/- was also awarded as cost. Nothing has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that there was abnormal delay in payment of compensation to them by the respondents. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to grant further interest. As far as levy of penalty is concerned, at the relevant time, even if the penalty was to be imposed, the same was to be deposited with the State. The claimants were not going to be benefitted in any manner. Even the claim for the same is also rejected. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 31.1.2011 mk