JUDGMENT A. L. Vaidya, J.: The present appeal has been directed against the order dated 20th January, l989 whereby one Pritam Singh deceased was awarded an amount of Rs.99,700/-+Rs.49,850/- as penalty alongwith statutory interest on the awarded amount from the date of accident, that is, 27th October, 1983 till the date of deposit. The present respondents were substituted as legal representatives of Pritam Singh, who died during the pendency of the present appeal. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that Sh. Pritam Singh deceased was employed with the appellants on 27th April, 1983 and during such employment, as driver, he received injuries on 27th October, 1983 on account of an accident which took place near Shoghi in District Shimla, due to some mechanical defect. Those injuries, according to the claimant, had caused permanent disability. Sh. Pritam Singh deceased preferred a petition under the provisions of Workmens Compensation Act, for grant of compensation in respect of the no daily injuries he suffered in an accident caused during his employment with the present appellants. This application was contested and after an inquiry the Commissioner awarded the aforesaid amount 3. The order of the Commissioner has been assailed in the present appeal on various grounds. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has made the following submissions in support of his case:- (1) The injury was caused on 27th October, 1983 and the Commissioner acted illegally in awarding the compensation on the basis of the amended section 4 of the Workmens Compensation Act, which amendment took place after the accident, on 1st July, 1984 whereas the compensation was to be awarded in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, as it existed at the time of accident; (2) The pay of the claimant at the relevant time was Rs.800/- p.m. as alleged by him in his petition while the Commissioner has wrongly assessed the pay to be Rs.1, 000/- p.m. on some oral evidence: (3) There was no occasion for the Commissioner to have levied penalty and granted interest under the provisions of the Act. 5. There are certain proved facts on record which if taken note of would be relevant for the disposal of the present appeal. 5. There are certain proved facts on record which if taken note of would be relevant for the disposal of the present appeal. Those proved facts are as under; (a) The accident took place on 27th October, 1983 prior to the amendment of section 4 of the Act, which took place on 1st July, 1984. (b) As per the allegations made in the petition by the claimant, his monthly pay at the relevant time was Rs.800/-. (c) It has been admitted by the claimant when he was examined on oath before the Commissioner that he was being paid Rs.320/- per month by the department and that as per his information he was being paid for his medical aid. , (d) The claimant suffered permanent disability on account of injury caused in the alleged accident J 6. At this stage (1996 (1) Sim.L.C.370), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nako alias Naiku Devi & ors., can safely be referred. It has been held in this case that as the accident took place prior to the amendment of Schedule IV of the Act, the compensation has to be assessed according to the unamended Schedule. 7. In the present case, the Commissioner assessed the compensation on the basis of the amount referred in Schedule IV after the amendment which took place on 1st July,1984. 8. Prior to the amendment of section 4 of the Act, as per Schedule IV the total amount of compensation which could be awarded for a worker whose pay was between Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- was Rs.33,600/-. So, in the present case, as per the provisions of the Act, which stood before the amendment, the total compensation for permanent disability which could be awarded in favour of the deceased-claimant was Rs.33,600/- 9. Section 4 of the un-amended Act further provided that some payment is to be made to the disabled workman, which would be half monthly payment of the sum shown in fourth column of the IV Schedule. In the present case, that amount is Rs.160/- and monthly this amount comes out to be Rs.320/-. This amount as stated by the claimant himself was being paid to him regularly. It has also come in evidence that this amount was being paid from the date of accident. In the present case, that amount is Rs.160/- and monthly this amount comes out to be Rs.320/-. This amount as stated by the claimant himself was being paid to him regularly. It has also come in evidence that this amount was being paid from the date of accident. The penalty and interest could be awarded under section 4-A(3) of the Act, which runs as under: "4-A (3) Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default: (1)....................... (2)....................... (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner may direct that in addition to the amount of the arrears, simple interest at the rate of six percent per annum on the amount due together with, if in the opinion of the Commissioner there is no justification for the delay, a further sum not exceeding fifty percent of such amount, shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty." 10. In the present case, the employer started making payment of Rs.320/-per month as per Schedule IV about four months after the accident, but from the date of accident to the claimant. There is nothing on record to show that the claimant had informed the employer regarding his permanent disability which fact was disclosed for the first time during the proceedings before the Commissioner. In order to award the penalty and interest, the Commissioner has to give a finding that there was no justification for the delay in payment of the amount to the claimant. In the present case, neither there are any circumstances nor the Commissioner has given any reason for such an amount to be awarded in favour of the claimant. It was a case where neither penalty nor interest could be awarded, inasmuch as the employer within a very reasonable time started making payment to the worker from the date of accident as provided under Schedule IV of the Act. 11. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the Commissioner fell into a legal error in assessing the compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act as it stood after the amendment. Moreover, there 1 was no occasion in the present case for levying penalty and interest. 12. 11. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the Commissioner fell into a legal error in assessing the compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act as it stood after the amendment. Moreover, there 1 was no occasion in the present case for levying penalty and interest. 12. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is partly accepted and as a consequence thereof the claimant is awarded Rs.33,600/- as compensation for the permanent disability which he suffered in the employment of the present appellants. The order of the Commissioner with respect to the remaining awarded amount and payment of penalty and interest is, however, set aside. Amount of Rs.33,600/- has already been ordered to be released in favour of the claimant vide order dated 10th May,1989 passed by this Court, while the remaining amount was ordered to be invested in the fixed deposit in some nationalised bank in the name of the Registrar. The remaining amount so ordered to be invested in the fixed deposit alongwith interest earned thereupon be returned to the present appellants. The present appeal as per the aforesaid terms stands disposed of. The parties to bear their own costs.