Judgment This appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgment and order dated 9-8-2002 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Chamoli in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 03/ 2001-2002. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Maan Singh @ Man Bahadur 5/0 Dadi Ram and Smt. Ram Pyari W/o Maan Singh, both residents of Jagarkat, Gaan Kalli, P.S. Jagarkat, Nepk presently residing at Pipalkati, Patwari Circle Kaudia, District Chamali filed a claim an 1-2-2002 before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Chamalian the ground that their san deceased Prem Singh was under the employment of respandent no,. 2. He was a driver in truck No,. U.P.07 - K - 9473 an the monthly salary of Rs. 4000/- which included clothing and fooding both. That an 1-1-2002 at about 8 p.m. in the night the said vehicle was coming back from bazaar after dawn loading the goods. When the vehicle reached near Gulabkoti, two kilometers away from Helung, the front tyre of the vehicle burst, and the truck fell in Alaknanda river and on account of this accident the driver Prem Singh died. At the time of his death, he was 23 years of age. The vehicle was insured with New India Insurance Company Ltd. On the basis of these averments, the claimants claimed Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation. The claimants in documentary evidence filed the copy of F.I.R. dated 2-1-2002 paper no,. 13, copy of the G.D., paper no,. 19, paper cutting of Newspaper reporting the accident, inquest report and past mortem report. Oral statement of Maan Singh, P.W.1 was also, recorded. The respondents filed their objection wherein they admitted the accident. Respondent no,. 2 filed the insurance policy no,. 321906, which was valid from 24-12-2001 to, 23-12-2002. He also, filed certified copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle and goods carriage permit which was valid from 19-1-2000 to, 18-1-2005. Alang with these documents, copy of the pollution control certificate was also, filed. Statement of respondent no. 2, Bahadur Singh Panwar was also, recorded as D.W. 1. 3. The trial court found the claim of the claimants proved an the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties but rejected the claim an the ground that there was no, information given to, competent authority under section 10 in farm 'EE', of Workmen's Compensation Act. 2, Bahadur Singh Panwar was also, recorded as D.W. 1. 3. The trial court found the claim of the claimants proved an the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties but rejected the claim an the ground that there was no, information given to, competent authority under section 10 in farm 'EE', of Workmen's Compensation Act. Sectian-10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act requires that a notice is to, be given before filing of the claim in the manner provided in the section as soon as practicable after the happening thereof. It further provides that the claim shall be preferred within two years of the occurrence of the accident or in case of death within two years from the (late of death. Four provisos have been appended to, sub section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Clause (a) to, 4th proviso provides that far want of any defect or irregularity in notice shall not be a bar to, the entertainment of the claim, if the claim is preferred in respect of the death of the workman resulting from the accident which occurred an the premises of the employer or at any place, where the workman at the time of the accident was working under the control of the employer. Clause (b) provides that there shall be no, bar to, the entertainment of the claim if the employer had knowledge of the accident from any other source at or about the time when it occurred. In our opinion in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no, notice was required in view of clause (a) of 4th proviso appended to, sub section (1) of section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 4. In the present case admittedly the deceased was employee of the employer, the respondent no. 2 and by no, stretch of imagination it can be believed that the employer had no, knowledge about the accident of his truck in which death had occurred. There was Newspaper cutting as a document and the vehicle must have been lifted by the owner of the vehicle after the accident before the preference of the claim. Therefore, the claim could not have been rejected on this ground, and the trial court fell in to error in rejecting the claim on this ground. 5. The respondent no. 2 has admitted Rs. 3,500-00 monthly salary of the deceased Prem Singh. Therefore, the claim could not have been rejected on this ground, and the trial court fell in to error in rejecting the claim on this ground. 5. The respondent no. 2 has admitted Rs. 3,500-00 monthly salary of the deceased Prem Singh. The age of the deceased has also not been disputed. Now the compensation is to be calculated as per the provisions of section-4 of the Workmen's Compensation, Act and schedule-IV appended for calculation of the compensation under section-4 of the Act. Clause (a) of sub-section-4 provides that where the death results from the injury, an amount equal to 50% of monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor or an amount of Rs. 15,000/- whichever is more. Schedule-IV gives the factor by which the monthly wages is to be multiplied on the completion of the age of the deceased. Admittedly at the time of death of the deceased Prem Singh in the accident, his age was 23 years and on this, multiplier of 219.95 has to be applied on the monthly wages. Thus monthly salary Rs. 3,500-00 x 219.95 comes to Rs. 7,69,825/- and after deducting equal to 50% wages the compensation amount comes to Rs. 3,84,912.50. Therefore the appellants-' claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 3,84,912.50. In our opinion 9% interest per annum shall also be appropriate on this amount of compensation from the date of the filing of the claim petition. 6. Accordingly we allow the appeal and award the compensation of Rs. 3,84,912.50 (three lacs, eighty-four thousands, nine hundreds twelve and fifty paise along with 9% per annum interest to the claimants-appellants from the date offilling of the claim petition before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. No order as to costs.