JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Insurer is the appellant u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 2. There is a delay of four days in preferring the appeal. Accordingly, when this appeal came up for orders relating to condonation of delay, for the benefit of the workmen I called upon the parties to argue on the merits so that the appeal can be finally disposed of. It is true that the record of the lower Court has not been received as yet. However, parties possess the relevant records. Besides, an appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act either by the owner or by the insurer is confined to question of law only. Therefore, unless the question of law depends upon the facts of the case, no prejudice would be caused if the records are not received. In the present case, however, parties are in possession of relevant papers. After hearing Mr. Basu, learned counsel for appellant, I am satisfied that there is sufficient cause for the delay. Accordingly, delay is condoned, appeal is admitted and with consent of parties, the case is heard on merits. 3. Main dispute in this appeal is the direction in the impugned order for payment of penalty and interest in case the amount is not paid or deposited within one month from the date of the order. Quantum of penalty has also been fixed at 6 per cent. per annum. Mr. Basu submitted that this is a case where owner has admitted the salary and age of the decased and that the claimants are the dependants of the deceased workman, but no evidence having been led in this respect, the order is vulnerable. This is a pure question of fact and offence not to have been contested by the insurer before the Commissioner. Accordingly, in appeal I am not inclined to go into the said question. 4. After hearing the parties, I am satisfied that in the order itself penalty and interest ought not to have been determined anticipating that the payment may not be made within one month. Therefore, I would have set aside the order to consider the question of penalty and interest afresh. That would, however, linger the proceedings to the detriment of the workman. Accordingly, I set aside the order directing imposition of penalty. Therefore, I would have set aside the order to consider the question of penalty and interest afresh. That would, however, linger the proceedings to the detriment of the workman. Accordingly, I set aside the order directing imposition of penalty. On account of the fact that this appeal was filed, payment has not been made. In that view of the matter, I direct that the amount awarded shall be deposited by the insurer before the Commissioner within one month from today notwithstanding the fact that the appellant is not able to get a certified copy of the order from this Court, as this order is passed in the presence of learned counsel for the appellant. In case, the amount is not deposited within one month from today, it shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum from the date of application to the Commissioner till the date of payment. 5. It is now settled that adjudicating authorities empowered to give direction for payment of compensation are to protect the interest of the claimants so that the amount is properly utilised and the claimants get the benefit of the benevolent legislation. The Commissioner is directed to hear the claimant-applicants on the question of litigation expenses and other expenses incurred by them for getting this compensation. In a reasoned order, he shall determine the expenses incurred by the claimants and direct payment of cash to that extent. Balance amount deposited with him shall be invested in a fixed deposit in any nationalised bank or rural bank of the area of the choice of the claimants to which the claimants belong so that periodical interest, as is to be paid to the claimants, can be available to them for their proper utilisation without much expense. The investment shall be subject to the condition that it cannot be encumbered in any manner during the continuance of the investment. If, however, during the period of continuance there is any urgent necessity of the claimants, they can approach the Commissioner who after considering the cause of requirement of money, direct the bank to release a portion of the amount depending upon the necessity to be adjudicated by the Tribunal. Neither the owner nor the insurer is required to be heard in those matters. Neither the owner nor the insurer is required to be heard in those matters. As the matter has been long delayed, the Commissioner shall decide the question of mode of investment, as has been indicated, within one month from the date of deposit. Since insurer is an authority under Article 13 of the Constitution, liberty is given to the insurer to move this Court in this (sic) appeal if it is satisfied that the order relating to investment by the Commissioner is not reasonable, 6. With the aforesaid direction, this appeal is disposed of with consolidated cost of Rs. 250 (rupees two hundred and fifty) payable to the claimants.