I. A. ANSARI, J. - This is an appeal preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the judgment and award dated 20.01.98, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, at Nagaon, in NWC No. 36/95. 2. The material facts leading to this appeal may, in brief, be stated thus : Deceased Madan Rai @ Singh was employed by Opposite Party No. 1 as driver for truck bearing registration No. AMK 698. On 12.12.93, the said deceased was driving the said vehicle, loaded with rice, from Guwahati towards upper Assam and when the vehicle was passing through an area called Uriagaon, which falls on National Highway No. 37 under Nagaon Police Station, right side of the front tyre of the said vehicle, suddenly, burst. As a result thereof, the deceased lost control on his vehicle and it dashed against an Omnibus, which was proceeding towards Guwahati from the direction of Jorhat. The truck got capsized, the said driver sustained injuries in the said accident and died on the spot. On the accident being reported to Police, G.D. Entry No. 266, dated 12.12.93, was made at Nagaon Police Station. Postmortem was also conducted on the dead body of the said deceased driver at Nagaon Civil Hospital on 12.12.93 itself. Smt. Rajkholi, mother of the said deceased driver, filed an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') seeking compensation for the death of her said son. The claimant alleged that her deceased son used to receive Rs. 1500/ - per month as salary and a daily allowance of Rs.50/- and that age of her said deceased son was, at the time of his death, about 25 years. The claimant also submitted that the said vehicle was insured with the present appellant, namely, Oriental Insurance company Ltd., Dibrugarh Branch. 3. The owner of the vehicle, impleaded as Opp. Party No.l filed his written statement admitting that the deceased Madan Rai was his driver and he died in the accident as hereinabove mentioned. The Opp. Party No. 1, however, contended that his vehicle was insured with Opp. Party No. 2 namely, M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the compensation, if any, shall be paid by the Opp. Party No. 2 to the claimant. 4. The Opp. The Opp. Party No. 1, however, contended that his vehicle was insured with Opp. Party No. 2 namely, M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the compensation, if any, shall be paid by the Opp. Party No. 2 to the claimant. 4. The Opp. Party No. 2 also contested the proceedings by filing written statement, wherein they contended, inter alia, that the claim petition was not maintainable and that the Opp. Party No. 2 was not liable to make payment of any compensation to the claimant. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act: 1. Is there any cause of action for the claim petition ? 2. Whether the claim petition is maintainable in the present form ? 3. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation as alleged ? 4. If yes, to what relief is the claimant entitled to? 6. At the time of hearing, the claimant adduced evidence by examining herself. No evidence was adduced by any of the Opp. Parties. 7. By the impugned judgment, dated 20.01.98, the learned Commissioner decided the Issue No. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the claimant and while dealing with Issue No. 4, learned Commissioner held that the claimant was entitled to statutory compensation amount of Rs. 1,97,0607-with interest @ 12% per annum as per provisions of Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act. The learned Commissioner accordingly awarded to the claimant a sum of Rs. 1,97,0607- as compensation with interest amounting to Rs.97,131.40 i.e., a total amount of Rs.2,94,191.40, being recoverable from the Opp. Party No. 2 with direction that the said amount shall be deposited within 30 days with the learned Commissioner for disbursement to the claimant failing which penalty in addition to up-to-date interest not exceeding 50% of such amount shall be paid to the claimant. Aggrieved by this award, the Opp. Party No.2 has preferred this appeal. 8. I have heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. D.R. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-respondent. I have also carefully perused the relevant record including the impugned judgment and award. 9. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant, has not contended before me that on the fats proved on the record, the claimant is not entitled at all to receive compensation from the Opp. D.R. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-respondent. I have also carefully perused the relevant record including the impugned judgment and award. 9. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant, has not contended before me that on the fats proved on the record, the claimant is not entitled at all to receive compensation from the Opp. Party No.2 as insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident aforementioned. What he has, however, emphasised upon is that since the accident had taken place on 12.12.93, the learned Commissioner ought to have determined the amount of compensation on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act as it stood in the year 1988 and not as it stands amended since 1995. Mr. Dutta has further submitted that the learned Commissioner has erroneously determined the compensation according to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act as it stands amended since 1995. 10. In support of his above contention, Mr. Dutta has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. -Vs- Valsala K. & Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 254 . It appears from the case cited by Mr. Dutta that the Apex Court has held that if the accident took place prior to the amendment, which was effected in the Workmen's Compensation Act in 1995, the compensation has to be determined on the basis of the Act as it stood before its amendment in 1995. This position of law is not disputed by Mr. D.R. Borah, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent. 11. In view of the above, there is no escape from conclusion that the impugned judgment and award suffers from illegality apparent on the face of the record. In short, thus, though the claimant is entitled to receive compensation from the Opp. Party No.2, the compensation amount needs to be determined under the Act of 1988. 12. Applying the law as it stood under the Workmen's Compensation Act in 1988, to the facts of the case at hand, it becomes clear that since the said deceased driver was, at best, receiving Rs. 1,5007- per month, his monthly wages for the purposes of Section 4(1 )(a) of the Act shall, as per Explanation II appended to Section 4(1 )(a) of the Act, be deemed to be one thousand rupees only. 1,5007- per month, his monthly wages for the purposes of Section 4(1 )(a) of the Act shall, as per Explanation II appended to Section 4(1 )(a) of the Act, be deemed to be one thousand rupees only. Since the said driver admittedly died on 12.12.93 as a result of injuries sustained by him in the said accident, the claimant is entitled to receive, under Section 4(1 )(a) read with Explanation II appended thereto of the Act, 40% of the said monthly wages of Rs.1,000/-, which comes to the tune of Rs.400/- per month. Since the age of the driver, at the time of his death, was, as per the relevant post mortem report, 35 years, the said amount of Rs.400/- needs to be multiplied by the relevant factor (as contained in Schedule-II of the Act). On such multiplication, compensation works out to the amount of Rs.78,824/-. This apart, the claimant is also entitled to receive simple interest @ 6% per annum, under Section 4(3) of the Act, on the said compensation amount. The interest so calculated comes to the tune of Rs. 18,9127 - upto the date of award, i.e. 20.01.98. 13. Coupled with the above, for delay in depositing the awarded amount, the claimant is entitled to receive delayed interest. In the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, a lump sum amount of Rs.3,500/- will be the just and adequate amount as interest for delayed compensation. 14. It may be pointed out that the learned Commissioner has imposed a penalty as hereinbefore mentioned on the Opp. Party No. 2, Mr. Dutta has correctly pointed out that the delay in depositing the compensation amount was not because of any personal fault of the insurer, but due to laches on the part of the claimant. In this regard, Mr. Dutta has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Ved Prakash Garg -Vs- Premi Devi, (1997) 8 SCC1. 15. In the case at hand, though the accident took place as early as on 12.12.93, the application under the Workmen Compensation Act was filed as late as in 1995. Thus, for the delay that the claimant herself has caused in seeking compensation, insurer cannot be held responsible. In this view of the matter, I find that the Opp. Party No. 2 cannot be saddled with the liability of paying any penalty. 16. Thus, for the delay that the claimant herself has caused in seeking compensation, insurer cannot be held responsible. In this view of the matter, I find that the Opp. Party No. 2 cannot be saddled with the liability of paying any penalty. 16. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal partly succeeds. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent thai instead of Opp. Party No. 2 paying an amount of Rs.2,94,191.40 as compensation with interest, the Opp. Party No. 2 shall, now, pay to the claimant, as indicated above, a total sum of Rs. 1,01,336/- (i.e. Rs.78,824.00 + 18,192.00 + Rs.3,500.00 = Rs.l,01,336.00). 17. The record reveals that the Opp. Party No. 2 has already deposited an amount of Rs. 1,97,0607- by way of cheque. On 10.06.98, which the learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. It is hereby directed that after deducting the amount of Rs. 1,01,336.00 from the said deposited sum of Rs. 1,97,040.00, the balance amount be refunded to the Opp. Party No. 2. 18. With the modifications in the award, as hereinabove directed, this appeal stands disposed of. 19. Send back the case record with a copy of this judgment and order.