Judgment 1. Heard the parties and perused Lower Court records and with their consent the two appeals are disposed of under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Admittedly, Satyendra Narain Singh was owner of the truck (BPM 1240) and Ganesh Prajapati (25 years) and Dinesh Choudhary (25 years) were employed respectively as driver and Khalasi thereon. The vehicle at the relevant time was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Unfortunately, while on duty, both driver and Khalasi of the said truck were killed by unknown miscreants on 16.11.1995. Their dependants filed S.C. Case Nos. 26 and 27 of 1995 before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner under the provisions of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Both the cases were disposed of on 31.3.1998 by separate orders, which have been impugned in these two appeals, filed by Insurance Company. 3. Mr. Ajay Kumar, counsel for appellant submitted that part of impugned order, wherein interest @ 12% per annum on the Compensation amount, under Section 4A of the Act was illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. Section 4A provides that compensation under Section 4 of the Act shall be paid since it fell due and where any employer was in default in paying the compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due, the commissioner was empowered to direct the employer, in addition to the amount of arrears, to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum. Further, if in his opinion, there was no justification for the delay, employer, in addition to the amount of arrears and interest thereon can be directed to pay a further sum, not exceeding 50% of such amount, by way of penalty. Under Proviso to Section 4A(3)(b) order for payment of penalty cannot be passed under Section 4A(3)(b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed. The said proviso is not applicable, where simple interest is directed to be paid under Section 4A(3)(a). 5. According to submission of Mr. Ajay Kumar, the learned Commissioner should not have granted interest, under Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act, without giving reasonable opportunity to show cause, which was not done in the present cases and alongwith final order for payment of compensation, interest was also awarded. 6. 5. According to submission of Mr. Ajay Kumar, the learned Commissioner should not have granted interest, under Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act, without giving reasonable opportunity to show cause, which was not done in the present cases and alongwith final order for payment of compensation, interest was also awarded. 6. In my view, there was no occasion for giving a reasonable opportunity to show cause in the matter of awarding interest. Proviso to Section 4A(3)(b) is applicable only in case of awarding penalty in addition to the amount of compensation and interest thereon. Provisions of show cause in such matter was made only because Commissioner was required to form his opinion on the basis of materials on record that there was no justification for delay in payment of compensation under Section 4, whereas in case where admittedly, for whatsoever reason, was found that employer defaulted in paying the compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner was empowered to award interest on the compensation amount. 7. I, therefore, find no substance in the submission of Mr. Ajay Kumar. The impugned order, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is quite justified and needs no interference in the present appeals, filed by Insurer, under Section 30 of the Act. 8. There is no merit in these two appeals. They are, accordingly, dismissed.