JUDGMENT R.S. Garg, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 16.4.1990 passed in Case No. 27/28/WC by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Act, Ambikapur, wherein the appellant/employer was directed to pay Rs. 84,716/- towards the compensation and 25% penalty on the said amount. 2. The brief facts leading to the case are that on 28.7.1985 deceased Akhtar Ali, s/o Akbar Ali who was working as first fireman, died in a Railway accident on the spot. The deceased at the time of the death was married to respondent 1 and was having a son named Asif Ali. 3. On the above said allegation respondent 1 moved an application under Section 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act seeking compensation of Rs. l,60,968.43 and imposition of the penalty was also sought under Section 4A of the Act. (Interest @ 15% was also claimed. 4. The present appellants appeared before the Commissioner but did not file its written statement. Therefore, the right to file the written statement was closed. However, the record shows that some written statement was filed on behalf of the present appellants. The claimant examined her ownself in support of her claim while the present appellants examined 2 witnesses on their behalf it was con tended by the present appellant that the date of birth of the deceased was 19.10.1954 and therefore on the date of death he was not 28 years of age but was 32 years. However, in support of this plea the documents or service book was not produced. It was also submitted that salary was Rs. 1070/- but in support of this statement the salary certificate, pay slip or any other document was not filed. After hearing the parties the learned Commissioner held that the age of the deceased was 28 years and he was drawing Rs. 1900/- p.m. The claimants were held entitled to Rs. 84,716/- and the present appellants were liable, to pay the amount and penalty equivalent to 25% of the claim amount. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 5. Mr. Mukherjee Counsel for the appellant contended that learned Court below did not frame proper issues and did not consider the case of the parties to come to a positive conclusion tha t the appellant was not unnecessarily delaying the payment of the compensation. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 5. Mr. Mukherjee Counsel for the appellant contended that learned Court below did not frame proper issues and did not consider the case of the parties to come to a positive conclusion tha t the appellant was not unnecessarily delaying the payment of the compensation. On the other hand, Mr. Kamrudding Counsel for the respondent submitted that even if every tiling is assumed in favour of the Railways administration at least after notice of the present claim the administration being duty bound was obliged to make the payment of the undisputed amount to the claimant or in any case should have deposited the said amount with the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation. 6. From the record it appears that the present appellant who was possessed of the best records did not choose to file the same. Copy of the service book could have been filed by them to show that the deceased was not 28 years of age but in fact was borne in 1954 and was 32 years of age. The administration also did not chose to file the salary certificate or pay slip which could have conclusively prove the salary and the emoluments of the deceased. On these aspects I do not find any wrong with the findings of the Trial Court. 7. So far as imposition of the penalty is concerned, it cannot be disputed that Railway administration did try to make the payment of the compensation amount to the claimant/respondent 1 which she refused to accept on the ground that she would accept the same only after receiving instructions from her lawyer. This may provide some justification in favour of the Railway administration but it would not be absolute solace. The Railway administration after 2.3.1988 should have deposited the amount with the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation. This fair act on the part of the Railway administration to offer the compensation, may be a mitigating circumstance to reduce the penalty but would not be a ground to exonerate them absolutely. 8. The learned Commissioner has not assigned any reasons as to why 25% penalty has been imposed. The claimant file her claim before the Railway Accident Claims Tribunal and also filed the petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act which compelled the Railway Ruthorities to enter into litigation unnecessarily. 8. The learned Commissioner has not assigned any reasons as to why 25% penalty has been imposed. The claimant file her claim before the Railway Accident Claims Tribunal and also filed the petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act which compelled the Railway Ruthorities to enter into litigation unnecessarily. In the opinion of this Court, looking to the conduct of the claimant so also the offer made by the Railway administration, the penalty deserves to be reduced to 10% only. 9. The award passed by the Commissioner is maintained with the modifi cation that the claimant shall be entitled to the 10% penalty on the awarded amount. I am told that the amount of compensation alongwith full penalty has already been deposited by the Railway administration with the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall recalculate the said amount and make payment to the claimant. If anything excess is found to be deposited, the same shall be returned to the Railway administration. 10. The appeal to the extent indicated above is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.