JUDGMENT S.N Phukan, C.J.—By this common judgment, we dispose of two appeals, registered as FAO (WCA) No 91 of 1987 and FAO (WCA) No/ 92 of 1 87 and also Cross-Objections No, 88 of 1989 filed in FAO No. 92 of 1987. 2. The appeal, registered as FAO (WCA) No. 91 of 1987 has been filed by the Insurance Company against the Award dated 30-6-1987 in Case No. 3/85, of the Commissioner, Solan, under the Workmens Compensation Act. The claim petition was filed by Smt Nako alias Naiku Devi widow of deceased Tulsia Ram and two minors, namely, Miss Devkoo Devi and Master Naiayan Dass Deceased Tulsia Ram was employed by respondent Nos 1 and 2, namely, Dhani Ram son of respondent No 2 Devi Ram, who are the owners of Truck No. HPA 1277. The truck was driven by deceased Ram Lal The truck in question—rolled down from the main road, as a result of which deceased Tulsia Ram sustained injuries and died. The accident took place on 27-6-1984 The deceased died leaving behind the claimants as his dependents as other daughters and son were married. The Commissioner held that the driver deceased Ram Lai was holding a valid driving licence. It was also held that deceased Tulsia Ram was paid a sum of Rs 600 per month as wages and that three claimants were his dependents, The Commissioner came to the finding that the truck was insured with the present appellant Accordingly, under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended, a sum of Rs. 44,200 was assessed as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and the liability for the compensation was fixed on the Insurance Company, namely, the present appellant Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed 3. The appeal, registered as FAO (WCA) No. 92 of 1987 has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 30-6-1987 passed in case No 6/84, of the Commissioner, Solan, under the Workmens Compensation Act. The present claim petition was filed by Smt. Malti Devi widow of Ram Lai and also on behalf of minor son Master Babli. The appeal, registered as FAO (WCA) No. 92 of 1987 has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 30-6-1987 passed in case No 6/84, of the Commissioner, Solan, under the Workmens Compensation Act. The present claim petition was filed by Smt. Malti Devi widow of Ram Lai and also on behalf of minor son Master Babli. Deceased Ram Lai died in the same accident and on the same date and he was the driver of the vehicle The Commissioner held that deceased Ram Lai had the valid driving licence No P/2794/79 and that his monthly wages was Rs. 750. A sum of Rs. 65,03 alongwith interest at the i ate of 6 per cent per annum was awarded as a compensation in favour of the claimants and the liability was fixed on the Insurance Company and hence the present appeal. 4. In Cross-Objections No. 88 of 1989 filed on behalf of the claimants, penalty as per the provisions of the Act has been claimed. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Counsel for the respondents. 6. On behalf of the appellants, the main point urged is that the Commissioner erred in awarding compensation under the amended Schedule IV to the Act. It may be stated that this Schedule was amended by Act No. 22 of 1984 and it came into force on 1st July, 1984, that is, after about three days of the accident. Therefore, the main point is whether while assessing compensation, the present claimants will be governed by the amended Schedule or not. 7. It is a well settled rule of interpretation that unless the terms of a statute expressly provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a hew liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure and that all statutes other than those which are merely declaratory or which relate only to matters of procedure or of evidence are prospective, 8. We may refer to Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edn. We may refer to Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edn. p. 215, regarding retrospective operation of statutes in the following terms: “Upon the presumption that the legislature does not intend that is unjust rests the leaning against giving certain statutes a retrospective operation They are construed as operating only in cases or on facts which come into existence after the statutes were passed unless a retrospective effect is clearly intended. It is a fundamental rule of English law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act or arises by necessary and distinct implication." 9. Applying the above settled law of Interpretation, we hold that as the accident took place prior to the amendment of the Schedule IV of the Act, the compensation has to be assessed according to unamended Schedule We say so as if retrospective operation is given to the amended Schedule, it will take away the rights of the parties, namely, the owner as well as the Insurance Company, in this regard, Therefore, the Commissioner erred in law in assessing the compensation under the amended Schedule IV. 10. Similar view has been expressed by various High Courts, namely/ Punjab and Haryana High Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Moola Singh and others, 1970 ACJ 401, Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in Uttam v. The Corporation of the City of Nagpur, 1981 (i) ILR (Bombay Series) 789, Allahabad High Court in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Abdul Hameed, 1985 ACJ 832 and Kerala High Court in Kochu Velu v. Purakkattu Joseph and others, 1984 ACJ 630. 11. Learned Counsel for the claimants has urged that as this is a welfare legislation, it has to be given retrospective effect and in support has placed reliance on a Single Bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mines Manager v. Waheedul Haque Abbasi, 1994 ACJ 334. In paragraph 8 of the judgment the learned Single Judge expressed his view that as amending Act No. 22 of 1984 is a piece of welfare legislation, it should be given retrospective effect to the benefit of the employee m deter-. In paragraph 8 of the judgment the learned Single Judge expressed his view that as amending Act No. 22 of 1984 is a piece of welfare legislation, it should be given retrospective effect to the benefit of the employee m deter-. -mining his entitlement to compensation in a pending matter We are unable to accept, with respect, the views expressed by the learned Single Judge, as such a general view regarding beneficial legislation cannot be taken and the question whether a beneficial legislation is retrospective or not would depend on the language of the statutes from which legislative intention is to be gathered. 12 In the present appeals, we have already stated that if the retrospective effect is given, it will take away the vested rights of the owner as well as the Insurance Company, which cannot be done unless the language of the Act is clear 13. In Appeal, registered as FAO (WCA) No. 91 of 1987, the wages of the deceased was fixed at Rs4 600 per month, therefore, applying the provisions of Schedule IV, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 21 600. This amount shall be paid by the appellant-Insurance Company, 14. In FAO (WCA) No. 92 of 1987, the wages of the deceased Ram Lal was fixed at Rs. 750 per month, therefore, the claimants shall be entitled to get Rs 24 000. Similarly, this amount shall also be paid by the appellant-Insurance Company. 15. The compensation amount fell due on the date of the accident, that is, 27-6-1984, but it was not paid/deposited within one month, Therefore, the claimants-respondents in both the appeals shall be entitled to simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount of compensation. 16. Regarding penalty, there is no finding of the Commissioner. We do not find from the record that there was any justification for not paying the amount within the above period. Therefore, the claimants in both the appeals shall be entitled to get penalty of 50 per cent on the amount of compensation awarded. 17. Now, the question arises, who is liable to pay the interest as well as penalty. We do not find from the record that there was any justification for not paying the amount within the above period. Therefore, the claimants in both the appeals shall be entitled to get penalty of 50 per cent on the amount of compensation awarded. 17. Now, the question arises, who is liable to pay the interest as well as penalty. This point was duly considered by this Bench in FAO (WCA) No. 166 of 1992 in Smt. Dromati Devi v Sohan Singh and others, decided on 26-6-1995 This Court considered the provisions of section 4-A of the Act and held that both the interest and the penalty are payable by the owner. Therefore, we direct that in both the appeals the interest and the penalty shall be paid by the owner of the vehicle, namely, Dhani Ram and Devi Ram The amount, if not already deposited by the above respondents, shall be paid within two months from today, failing which it shall carry an interest of 12 per cent per annum. With the above modifications in the Awards, both the appeals and Cross-objections are disposed of. Costs on the parties. Order accordingly.