JUDGMENT : N.N. Mithal, J.—On the dismissal of the workmans, petition for compensation moved before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner Bulandshahr the present F.A.F.O. has been filed. 2. The admitted facts are: that the appellant was employed as a Chaukidar at a petrol pump belonging to the respondent on 21-3-76 on a salary of Rs. 150/- p.m. It is alleged that a dacoity was committed at the petrol pump during day time while the appellant was on duty and in the scuffle which ensued between the dacoits and the appellant to prevent the dacoity he sustained incised wound in the left forearm of his hand. Admittedly, he was taken to the hospital by his employer. Injury report is on the record which also clearly shows that he was brought before the doctor by his employer. The doctor was examined and he has stated that two small fingers of his left hand have become immobile and the entire hand has not been rendered useless. He has, therefore, opined that the loss of capacity was only 50% on account of injury. 3. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner has accepted this part of the claim that 50% incapacity on account of the injury has been caused to the appellant. However, it has further recorded a finding that the injury was not sustained by him in the course of his employment or in discharge of his duty and, therefore, the employer was not liable for payment of compensation. 4. The short point that arose for consideration is whether on the admitted facts injury had been received by the appellant during the course of employment and in discharge of his duty ? In the written statement the employer did not raise any plea that the appellant was not employed as Chaukidar to perform the duty during day time. Admittedly, the appellant was present at the time of incident and it is undisputed that it is one of the duties of the Chaukidar to protect the property of his employer. If there was a dacoity committed during day time it was the foremost duty of the appellant, as a chaukidar, to try to prevent the same. While doing so if the appellant got injury it must be deemed to have been caused both in the course of employment and also in discharge of his duty as chaukidar. It is strange that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner thought otherwise. 5. While doing so if the appellant got injury it must be deemed to have been caused both in the course of employment and also in discharge of his duty as chaukidar. It is strange that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner thought otherwise. 5. In my opinion, the appellant was acting in discharge of his duty at the time of receiving the injury in question and, as such, he was entitled to compensation payable to him in accordance with law. According to Schedule I Part-2 of the Workmen Compensation Act Item No. 35 deals with permanent partial disablement to the little or ring finger. If the injury is to the whole finger then compensation has to be computed at 7% of the total compensation payable. Admittedly, the accident took place in 1976 and at that time compensation payable was Rs. 4,900/- according to Schedule 4 of the Act. In this manner for each of the fingers the appellant would be entitled to receive Rs. 343/-. Since disability is only 50% the amount of compensation will be reduced to half. Therefore, for both the fingers the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 343/- on this account. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also drawn my attention to the provisions contained in Section 4-A of the Act according to which when the employer commits default in paying compensation due within one month from the date it fell due the court is empowered to grant interest at the rate of 6% on the amount of compensation payable and in addition to the award a sum up to 50% of the amount of compensation. In this case it would be just and proper if the maximum amount is granted in this connection to the claimant. 7. In view of this the appellant would be entitled to Rs. 343/- together with the interest at the rate of Rs. 6/- per cent from the date of accident to the date of payment and in addition a sum of Rs. 171.50 from the respondent. However, in the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs, here and below.