JUDGMENT : Kamlesh Sharma, J. 1. Appellant Gammon India Limited has assailed award dated 27.9.1986 passed by Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Shimla, Solan and Bilaspur Districts at Shimla (hereinafter called 'the Commissioner') whereby the respondents were awarded the following compensation: (i) Compensation : Rs. 45,968.17 (ii) Simple interest percent per for at the rate of 6      annum : Rs. 5,742.87 (iii) Penalty : Rs. 11,492.04 Total : Rs. 63,203.08 Since the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 19,200/- on 6.6.1986, it was directed to make payment of an amount of Rs. 44,003.10 to the respondents within a period of two months from the date of the award, failing which it would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The amount of award was apportioned amongst the respondents in equal shares. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are widow and sons of deceased workman Jaman Sada. Admittedly, he was working as a daily-waged labourer with the appellant w.e.f. October, 1983. On 8.5.1984 he was performing the excavation work of pier P-2 of Sirhali Khad Bridge when at 10.15 a.m. due to sudden fall of muck bucket (drum full of gravel and sand) on his head he received serious injuries. He was first removed to Civil Dispensary, Barthin and thereafter to Civil Hospital, Bilaspur, where he was declared dead. The report of the accident was made by the Assistant Engineer, Barthin Sub Division, H.P. P.W.D. on 10.5.1984. On receipt of a copy of the report the Commissioner called for copies of F.I.R., post-mortem report and names and addresses of the legal representatives of deceased workman Jaman Sada and thereafter sent notices to the appellant as well as the respondents. 3. In the meantime, the respondents filed application for compensation along with application for condonation of delay on 16.8.1986, on which notices were sent to the appellant as well as Assistant Engineer, Barthin Sub Division, H.P. P.W.D. for 2.9.1986. The Assistant Engineer raised no objection to condonation of delay and stated in his written reply that amount of Rs. 19,200/- deposited by the appellant may be paid to the respondents. Hence, delay was condoned. However, the representative of the appellant took time to consult the record of the appellant in order to give statement on its behalf on the next date of hearing. 19,200/- deposited by the appellant may be paid to the respondents. Hence, delay was condoned. However, the representative of the appellant took time to consult the record of the appellant in order to give statement on its behalf on the next date of hearing. The Commissioner adjourned the case to 26.9.1986 for reply to the claim petition by the appellant and also for recording statements of the parties. On 26.9.1986 the Assistant Engineer, Barthin Sub Division, H.P. P.W.D. was not present and he was proceeded ex pane. However, respondent No. 1 Tushya Devi along with her counsel as well as Bhal Chand, Ex. Subedar Major, Supervisor of the appellant were present and their statements were recorded besides the statements of Sarju, CW 2 and Laxmi Narayan, CW 3. In the order of 26.9.1986 it is recorded that the appellant failed to file reply to the claim petition, rather Bhal Chand, who was present as representative of the appellant, stated that as per the directions of A.K. Mirchandani, the then Resident Engineer of the appellant, he was there to give all information’s within his knowledge. Though he showed his inability to state whether the appellant wanted to produce evidence in its defence, yet he raised no objection to the release of the amount of compensation deposited by the appellant. He did not object to recording of his statement as RW 1 and production of relevant record in respect of engagement of deceased Jaman Sada as labourer on daily wage of Rs. 10.25. He had admitted that Jaman Sada had died as a result of injuries suffered by him by fall of muck bucket on his head. He had placed on record police report Exh. R-1 and post-mortem report Exh. R-2. He has further stated that report of accident was sent to the Head Office of the appellant, wherefrom an amount of Rs. 19,200/- was received for payment as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased, which was deposited before the Commissioner. In his cross-examination he had admitted that he had not brought the muster roll of the deceased and had given statement in respect of his wages on the basis of claim form but he had admitted that the appellant used to provide free accommodation of the value of Rs. 150/- per month and free' medical aid to deceased workman. In his cross-examination he had admitted that he had not brought the muster roll of the deceased and had given statement in respect of his wages on the basis of claim form but he had admitted that the appellant used to provide free accommodation of the value of Rs. 150/- per month and free' medical aid to deceased workman. He had again said that under the free medical aid the workmen get 75 per centre imbursement of their medical expenses on the basis of actual receipts. According to him deceased Sada Ram used to be given Rs. 300/- as travelling expenses for going to his home town. On the other hand, Tushya Devi, CW 1, Sarju Sada, CW 2 and Luxmi Narayan, CW 3, had stated that deceased Jaman Sada was earning about Rs. 700/- p.m., out of which he was remitting Rs. 500/- to his home for respondents. 4. On the basis of this evidence the Commissioner has assessed the monthly wages of the deceased workman as under: 1 Wages at the rate of Rs. 10.25 per day Rs. 307.50 2 Over time one hour per day at the rate of Rs. 1.28. Rs. 36.43 3 Medical aid Rs. 10.00 4 Accommodation Rs. 50.00 5 Water & electricity charges Rs. 20.00 6 Travelling expenses at the rate of Rs. 300/- per year Rs. 25.00 Total Rs. 448.93 (Wrongly calculated as Rs. 450.93) which is rounded off to Rs. 451/-. Accordingly, half the monthly wages are calculated as Rs. 225.50, to which the relevant factor 203.85 has been applied and the compensation amount of Rs. 45,968.17 is arrived at. The Commissioner has also awarded interest on this amount from the date of accident, i.e., 8.5.1984 to the date of payment. Further, holding that the amount of compensation was not deposited within one month from the date it fell due, penalty at the rate of 25 per cent which comes to Rs. 11,492.04 has also been awarded. As the amount of Rs. 19,200/- stood deposited on 6.6.1986, the remaining award amount of Rs. 44,003.10 was deposited on 17.12.1986, which was sent for by this Court and put in fixed deposit. The interest accruing on fixed deposit was ordered to be remitted to respondent Tushya Devi after every six months and an amount of Rs. 10,824/- was sent to her by way of bank draft as interest. 5. 44,003.10 was deposited on 17.12.1986, which was sent for by this Court and put in fixed deposit. The interest accruing on fixed deposit was ordered to be remitted to respondent Tushya Devi after every six months and an amount of Rs. 10,824/- was sent to her by way of bank draft as interest. 5. Now, in this appeal the appellant has challenged the award mainly on the ground that its representative had reached late on 2.9.1986 after the hearing of the case was over and he was told that the case would be taken up on 26.9.1986 when the statement of Bhal Chand was recorded besides the evidence of the respondents without giving it opportunity to file reply to the claim petition and cross-examine the witnesses produced by the respondents and on the next date, i.e., 27.9.1986 the award was announced. We do not find any merit in this submission, as noticed herein-above that the order dated 2.9.1986 was passed in the presence of the representative of the appellant, who took time to give statement on the next date of hearing. The case was adjourned to 26.9.1986 for filing reply to the claim petition by the appellant as well as for recording the statements of the parties. On the failure of the appellant to file reply to the claim petition, the Commissioner proceeded to record the statements of the witnesses produced on behalf of the respondents as well as Bhal Chand, who appeared as representative of the appellant. What to talk of raising of objection to the recording of his statement and praying for further time to file reply, he voluntarily stated that he was deputed by A.K. Mirchandani, the then Resident Engineer of the appellant to give all information’s to the Commissioner in respect of 'Job Sirhali Khad Bridge', whose decision be intimated to the office of the appellant. Hence, this submission made on behalf of the appellant is against the record of the Commissioner. 6. Another point raised on behalf of the appellant is that the monthly wages of the deceased have been calculated wrongly by the Commissioner without any evidence on the record. We do not find any substance in this submission, as it is admitted by Bhal Chand, RW 1, that the deceased Jaman Sada was employed on the daily wage of Rs. 10.25 and he was getting free accommodation of the value of Rs. We do not find any substance in this submission, as it is admitted by Bhal Chand, RW 1, that the deceased Jaman Sada was employed on the daily wage of Rs. 10.25 and he was getting free accommodation of the value of Rs. 150/-per month besides free medical aid. On his failure to produce the muster roll of deceased Jaman Sada, the Commissioner had no alternative but to presume that he might be working over-time for one hour per day on average for which wages at the rate of 1.28 per hour and Rs. 36.43 per month have been taken into account. Bhal Chand, RW 1, has further stated that the deceased Jaman Sada was getting Rs. 300 per year as travelling expenses for going to his home town. From the perusal of the statement of Bhal Chand, RW 1, it is clear that the Commissioner has committed an error in calculating monthly wages, inasmuch as instead of accounting Rs. 150/-towards rent free accommodation, he has accounted only Rs. 50/- towards rent and Rs. 20/- towards water and electricity charges. Therefore, we revise the monthly wages of the deceased Sada Ram from Rs. 450/- to Rs. 550/-. 7. The next argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that the compensation has been awarded as per schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter called the Act'), which was amended by Act No. 22 of 1984, w.e.f. 1.7.1984, whereas, the accident had occurred on 8.5.1984, to which retrospective effect was not given. We find substance in this submission and revise the compensation as per the unamended Schedule IV of the Act. According to the unamended Schedule IV of the Act for monthly wages of the deceased Jaman Sada of Rs. 550/-, the compensation prescribed is Rs. 21,600/-. Accordingly, we modify the award and hold the respondents entitled to Rs. 21,600 as compensation instead of Rs. 45,968.17. 8. One more submission made on behalf .of the appellant is that in the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no justification for imposing penalty at the rate of 25 per cent on the appellant as it had taken up the matter with the insurance company and deposited the amount of compensation of Rs. 19,200/- on 6.6.1986 immediately after it was received from the insurance company. 19,200/- on 6.6.1986 immediately after it was received from the insurance company. We do find any merit in this submission, as provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A of the Act the appellant was liable to deposit the amount of compensation within one month from the date it fell due, which was no other date than the date of accident as legally interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata 1976 ACJ 141 Therefore, the Commissioner has rightly imposed penalty but it should be 50 per cent of the amount of compensation instead of 25 per cent awarded by him, as the appellant has delayed the deposit of the amount of compensation for more than two years without any justification whatsoever. Accordingly, the penalty will come to Rs. 10,800/-. The respondents are also entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of accident, i.e., 8.5.1984 till the date of payment. Since the amount of Rs. 19,200/-was deposited on 6.6.1986, they will be entitled to interest on the full amount of compensation till that date and thereafter on the balance amount of compensation till 12.12.1986. 9. Therefore, in view of our findings, we accept the appeal partly and modify the award to the extent stated hereinabove. The amount of compensation with penalty and interest be remitted to respondent No. 1 by way of bank draft. Since the amount lying in deposit is more than the amount awarded to the respondents, the excess amount is ordered to be refunded to the appellant but the amount of interest already paid to the respondents will not be refunded. No order as to costs.