R. S. Mongia, C. J. (Acting). — This appeal by the insurance company is against the award of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, West Tripura (Agartala) dated 13.12.2000 in Case No. TS (WC) 49 of 1997. 2. The claimants, now respondents Smti Namita Deb and Smti Tulshi Deb, who are the widow and the mother of the deceased Laxman Deb filed petition before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, West Tripura (Agartala) for award of compensation due to the alleged death of husband of claimant-respondent No. 1 and son of claimant-respondent No.2 by accident arising out of and in course of employment under Shri Prasenjit Majumdar, owner of Jeep No. TRT 1192. After appreciating evidences on record the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, awarded Rs. 2,11,790 as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum wef 10.2.1996, the date of accident. While awarding the compensation it was observed that the same would also include compensation to the minor son of the deceased. 3. The employer aforesaid was insured with the appellant insurance company. The application for award of the compensation was filed on 13.12.1997 and the award was given on 13.12.2000. After the awarding of the amount as aforesaid, it was further observed that the insurance company, which was a party before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, shall pay the amount of compensation within a period of two months from the date of the award failing which the interest rate shall be 16% per annum after two months. 4. The appellant herein had deposited the amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident with the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation on 14.3.2001 amounting to Rs. 3,41,858. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has not seriously assailed the award of compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum though it was suggested that some reasons should have been given for giving the interest from the date of the accident and not from the date of the award. However, the learned counsel seriously argued that the default clause, that is, if the payment is not made within the period of two months from the date of the award the interest would be 16%, is against the provision of section 4A (3) (a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. However, the learned counsel seriously argued that the default clause, that is, if the payment is not made within the period of two months from the date of the award the interest would be 16%, is against the provision of section 4A (3) (a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. According to the learned counsel, the interest cannot be more than the lending rate by a scheduled Bank and since the lending rate is not more than 12% then in default the awarding of interest at the rate of 16% on the awarded amount is not sustainable. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the award of the 16% interest in default of payment within two months was an interest awarded under section 4A (3) (b). It was a sort of penalty imposed on the insurance company that in case the amount is not paid within the stipulated period t another 4% interest over and above 12% will be added. In other words, a coercive method was adopted by the learned Commissioner to see that the payment is made within the stipulated period by award of 4% extra. Interest from the date of the making of the application till the date of the award at the rate of 4% comes to Rs. 25,000 (approx). The payment by the insurance company was made after little over two months of the making of the award. We are of the view that justice would be met if the appellant pays 3% simple interest under the default clause which comes to Rs. 19,000 (approx) without going into any mathematical calculations. In other words, under the default clause the interest is being calculated at the rate of 3% instead of 4% as awarded by the Commissioner and is being calculated from the date of filing of the application before the Commissioner and not from the date of accident. Let this amount be paid to the claimant-respondent No. 1 through a crossed cheque or Bank draft drawn in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1 within one month from today. The handing over the cheque or the draft, as the case may be, to the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1 would be considered as good payment. Let this amount be paid to the claimant-respondent No. 1 through a crossed cheque or Bank draft drawn in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1 within one month from today. The handing over the cheque or the draft, as the case may be, to the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1 would be considered as good payment. Copy of this order attested by the Bench Secretary be given to the learned counsel for the appellant for onward transmission to the concerned authority. 8. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.