D. N. Chowdhury, J. — This appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has arisen out of and directed against the order dated 12.7.94, passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, West Tripura, in Civil Misc Case No.22 of 1994 arising out of TS (WC) No. 21 of 1992. 2. The appellants instituted a claim case for compensation before the Commi­ssioner, Workmen's Compensation, on the death of Dulal Goswami, the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos 2,3 and 4, due to the injuries caused to him (workman) by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. 3. The learned Commissioner in due course passed an Award on 25.8.93 in TS (WC) No. 21 of 1992 for an amount of Rs.80,664 (Rs eighty thousand six hundred sixty four) only towards compensation to all the claimants appellants directing the respondents to deposit the said amount of compensation within forty five days from the date of the judgment. The awarded amount was not deposited within the period specified in the judgment/Award and the appellants thereupon filed a petition before the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, for recovery of the said amount further demanding compensation and penalty for default in payment of the original awarded amount of compensation. The said petition was registered and numbered as Civil Misc Case No. 22 of 1994. 4. The awarded amount of compensation was paid after eleven months from the date of the Award. The learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, in terms of sub-section (3) of section 4 A of the Act, 1923, ordered the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 (Rs one thousand) only within one month from the date of the order (12.7.94) and further ordered that there would be another interest at the rate of 12% per annum if the penalty was not paid within one month thereafter. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 12.7.94, passed under section 4A (3) of the Act, the petitioners/claimants as appellants have preferred this appeal. 5. Mr. S. Talapatra, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that section 4A of the Act, 1923 is a mandatory provision for prompt payment of the compensation. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 12.7.94, passed under section 4A (3) of the Act, the petitioners/claimants as appellants have preferred this appeal. 5. Mr. S. Talapatra, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that section 4A of the Act, 1923 is a mandatory provision for prompt payment of the compensation. The statute provides the mechanism for such prompt payment under section 4 A of the Act, 1923 and for default in paying the compensation under the Act within me specified period, the Commissioner, Workmen's Compen­sation was entrusted with the duty to ensure/direct payment of interest as well as the arrear compensation, besides awarding penalty to be paid by the employer. 6. Mr. SM Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company, submitted that the Award money was received by the appellants and the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, considering the facts and circumstances a of the case, ordered for payment of Rs. 1,000 (Rs one thousand) only as a penalty. Mr. Ali, the learned counsel, submitted that section 4A of the Act, 1923 confers on the Commissioner a discretionary power who is to exercise the power in accordance with law and, therefore, there was no infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner (District Judge in the instant case). Section 4A of the Act, 1923 was inserted by Act 8 of 1959 for ensuring prompt payment of the compensation to the workman or his heirs/dependents. Obviously, section 4A was enacted to deter the employer from its torpidity in payment of compensation which becomes payable. It is a beneficial provision for the benefit of the workmen inserted with the view to ensure expeditious payment of the compensation. The statutory provision does not countenance any delay in making such payment and the Commissioner is accordingly entrusted with the duty to implement the provisions of the statute. Section 4A of the Act casts a statutory responsibility on the Commissioner for the enforcement of the statutory provisions. 7. In the instant case, admittedly, on the own showing of the Commissioner, money was paid only after eleven months, that too after institution of the Misc Case. No justification as such for the delay in payment of the money was discernible, The learned Commissioner (District Judge in the instant case) ordered for payment of a sum of Rs. 1,000 (Rs one thousand) only without assigning any reason. No justification as such for the delay in payment of the money was discernible, The learned Commissioner (District Judge in the instant case) ordered for payment of a sum of Rs. 1,000 (Rs one thousand) only without assigning any reason. The above act of the learned Commissioner is in breach of the statutory scheme. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 9. Mr. SM Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, pointed to the proviso to sub-section (3) and submitted that there was no scope for imposing a penalty under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 4A of the Act without giving opportunity to the employer to show cause as to why such an order imposing penalty should not be passed. The learned Commissioner in the instant case, did not address its mind to this provision. 10. The appeal was filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the impugned order. In the appeal, specific grounds are taken by the appellants which by themselves amounts to sufficient notice on the respondents in terms of the proviso to section 4A (3) (b) of the Act. Under clause (a) of sub-section (3), the Commissioner was required to award interest for the default in paying the compensation within the prescribed period as specified thereunder. The learned Commissioner while awarding Rs. 1,0007- overlooked clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 4A. The respondent deposited the amount after eleven months without any reason of whatsoever manner. The Commissioner in the instant case, was not justified in not acting in terms of clause (a) of sub-section (3). 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the matter and we hold that the learned Commissioner fell into error in not awarding interest as well as the penalty along 'with the arrears of compensation on the face of the statutory provisions. Considering the facts and the attending circumstances, we direct the respondents to pay a simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount awarded by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, on 25.8.93 in TS (WC) No. 21 of 1992, ie, Rs. 80,664 (Rs eighty thousand six hundred sixty four) only. Considering the facts and the attending circumstances, we direct the respondents to pay a simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount awarded by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, on 25.8.93 in TS (WC) No. 21 of 1992, ie, Rs. 80,664 (Rs eighty thousand six hundred sixty four) only. In addition, we further direct the contesting respondent to pay another amount of 15% of the aforesaid amount by way of penalty to the appellants since, in our opinion, there was no justification for the delay in making payment of the compensation as awarded by the Commissioner. The Award is accordingly modified. 12. The amount already paid to the appellants in terms of the order dated 12.7.94 passed in Misc Case (Civil) No. 22 of 1994 shall accordingly be adjusted. 13. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.