Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. (2). This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.12.1998 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur in case no. 2/97 Smt. Bhoor Kanwar and ors. vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corpn. (3). By the impugned judgment, the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 1, 28, 350 to the claimants and further directed the payment of interest @ 12% per annum as well as a sum of Rs. 20, 000/- by way of penalty. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the award of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was not justified because no application for compensation had been moved by the claimants before the appellant. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is based on the assumption that Sec. 4-A of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, makes it necessary for the claimant to move an application before the employer for awarding the compensation to him/them and the liability of the employer to pay compensation arises after the submission of the application and not before that. Section 4-A of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 reads:- ``Sec.4-A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default- (1) Compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for com- pensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the event of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the workman, as the case may be without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim. (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 per cent 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 per cent of such amount, shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty. (4). A bare reading of Sec.4A of the Workmens Compensation Act,1923 shows that the liability to pay the compensation, occurs as soon as the accident is caused. (5). (4). A bare reading of Sec.4A of the Workmens Compensation Act,1923 shows that the liability to pay the compensation, occurs as soon as the accident is caused. (5). In Ram Dulari Kalia vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Shimla, and another (1), Honble Justice P.D. Desai considered the question as to when the liability to make compensation occurs. The decision given in Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Shrinivas Sabata and another (2) was cited before His Lordship. In that case it was observed:- ``Section 3 of the Act deals with the employers liability for compensation. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that the employer shall be liable to pay compensation if `personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. It was not the case of the employer that the right to compen- sation was taken away under Sub-sec. (5) of S.(3) because of the institution of a suit in a civil court for damages in respect of the injury against the employer or any other person. The employer therefore became liable to pay the compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the workman by the accident which admittedly arose out of and in the course of the employment. It is, therefore, futile to content that the compensation did not fall due until after the Commissioners order, dated 6th May 1969, under Sec. 19. What the Section provides is that if any question arises in any proceeding under the Act as to the liability of any person to pay compen- sation or as to the amount or duration of the compensation it shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. There is, therefore, nothing to justify the argument that the employers liability to pay compensation under Sec. 3, in respect of the injury, was suspended until after the settlement contemplated by Section 19. The appellant was thus liable to pay compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the appellant, and there is no justification for the argument to the contrary. It was the duty of the appellant, under Sec. 4A(1) of the Act, to pay the compensation at the rate provided by Sec. 4 as soon as the perso- nal injury was caused to the respondent. He failed to do so. It was the duty of the appellant, under Sec. 4A(1) of the Act, to pay the compensation at the rate provided by Sec. 4 as soon as the perso- nal injury was caused to the respondent. He failed to do so. What is worse, he did not even make a provisional payment under sub-sec.(2) of Sec. 4 for, as has been stated, he went to the extent of taking the false pleas that the respondent was a casual contractor and that the accident occurred solely because of his negligence. Then there is the further fact that he paid no heed to the respondents personal approach for obtaining the compensation. It will be recalled that the respondent was driven to the necessity of making an application to the Commissioner for settling the claim, and even there the appellant raised a frivolous objection as to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and prevailed on the respondent to file a memorandum of agreement settling the claim for a sum which was so grossly inadequate that it was rejected by the Commissioner. In these facts and circumstances, wee have no doubt that the Commissioner was fully justified in mak- ing an order for the payment of interest and the penalty. (6). The observation made in the decision of Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Shrinivas Sabata and another (supra), as to the liability of the employer to pay compensation were approved by Honble Justice P.D. Desai in Ram Dularis case (supra). (7). In view of the above position of law, the contention that the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner was not justified in awarding penalty does not appear to be correct. (8). For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal has no force. It deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.