JUDGMENT - V.H. BHAIRAVIA, J.:---Heard the learned Counsel Shri. T.S. Ingale for the appellants, and Shri. S.R. Rajguru for the respondent. 2.This appeal has been filed by the appellants-applicants against the order dated 2-1-1993 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act in W.C. No. 49 of 1990. An application was made under section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and demanded the amount of penalty and interest on the compensation amount. 3.It is the case of the appellants that they are the dependent parents of the workman who died by accidental death while he was in the employment of the respondent-employer. However, the respondent-Telecom Department failed to deposit an amount of compensation under section 4-A(3) of the Act within the stipulated time. It reveals that the respondent-Telecom Department deposited the amount of compensation for a sum of Rs. 13,500/- with the office of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act on 4-4-91 i.e. after lapse of 12 years and on receiving the deposited compensation amount, the dependents of the said workman, filed an application being Application W.C. No. 29/90 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act, Sangli and prayed for awarding them an amount of payment and interest on the compensation amount. The said application came to be dismissed by the order of the Commissioner dated 2-1-93. The learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act rejected the application with the following observations: "Considering the short period of 21 days employment of the deceased with the employer i.e. the Telecom District Engineer, Sangli, I am inclined to hold that this is not a fit case where any penalty or interest can be imposed on the employer. The claimants cannot take advantage of their own mistake." In my view, this is a very absurd view taken by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act which is untenable at law. Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 makes the employer liable to pay compensation for injury caused to the workman by accident arising out of and in course of his employment. The liability to pay compensation under the Act is no fault liability and the amount of compensation to be awarded is precisely laid down in the table under section 4 of the Act. The liability to pay compensation under the Act is no fault liability and the amount of compensation to be awarded is precisely laid down in the table under section 4 of the Act. Section 4 reads as under: 4.Amount of compensation---(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely: (a)Where death results from the injury an amount equal to forty percent of the monthly wages of the deceased work-man multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of twenty thousand rupees, whichever is more." 4.The quantum of liability of compensation prescribed in the table is "an amount equal to forty per cent of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of twenty thousand rupees, whichever is more." 5.In the instant case, the respondent-employer has not discharged this liability. It is submitted that according to the respondent-employer, a sum of Rs. 13,500/- was deposited on humanitarian ground and no demand for compensation was made by the dependents of the workman. This is also an absurd defence of the respondent-employer. The compensation under section 4 is no fault liability and it should be paid or deposited when it becomes due i.e. within one month. Further, the minium amount of compensation is also prescribed in the table of section 4. 6.In the instant case, the respondent-employer has deposited only Rs. 13,500/- not as a compensation but on humanitarian ground. Therefore, it is to be held that the respondent-employer has not discharged his statutory liability under the Act. For non-payment, the employer would be liable for penalty and interest from the date from which the amount has become due and payable which means the date of the accident or at the latest one month thereafter (Relied on 1985 L.I.C. 1327, Gujarat) and the employer need not to wait till the compensation is demanded or claimed by the workman or his dependent in case of his death. The liability of penalty and interest on the amount of compensation is a liability arise out of his default i.e. making late payment. 7.It has been contended by the learned Counsel that the appeal is barred under section 30 of the Act as there is no award of compensation has been passed by the competent authority and therefore, the question of paying interest and penalty does not arise in the instant case. 7.It has been contended by the learned Counsel that the appeal is barred under section 30 of the Act as there is no award of compensation has been passed by the competent authority and therefore, the question of paying interest and penalty does not arise in the instant case. In support of this argument, the learned Counsel relied on (Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Manorama Devi and others)1, 1985(1) L.L.N. 700 (Patna High Court). In that case, it was held that--- "No claim was ever put before the petitioner company by the claimant and therefore, the petitioner cannot be saddled with the penalty which is leviable only in cases of unjustifiable delays. The sum of Rs. 8,000/- awarded as penalty is, therefore disallowed." 8.In my aforesaid view, the respondent-employer has not deposited the compensation as per section 4 of the Act but the amount which is deposited on humanitarian ground sought to be treated as compensation. The compensation provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act is not a charity to the workman but it is a legal right and security against any accidental events, arising out of and in the course of employment. The minimum amount of compensation under section 4-A is Rs. 20,000/. The injured workman may be a casual labourer or a regular employee, even if a workman has worked for a day and he met with an accident, the length of his service is irrelevant for the purpose of awarding compensation under the Act. Hence, the order passed by the Commissioner is required to be set aside and hence, it is set aside. Appeal is allowed with costs. 9.The respondent-employer is directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the appellants and interest thereon till the payment and the penalty thereon according to law. The respondent-employer is further directed to pay the amount indicated in this order within six week to the appellants. Appeal allowed. *****