JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral): When this case was taken up today, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that since the record is here and controversy involved in this case is limited qua assessment of compensation on the basis of record, it needs to be disposed of after its formal admission at the threshold. 2. Learned Advocate General submitted that the respondents may like to file appeal against the impugned award. As according to him, since appellant was insured under Personal Accident Scheme of the H.P. Government and has been paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-therefore, compensation awarded to him (appellant) is liable to be reduced. When questioned specifically who paid the premium of such insurance, he fairly stated that it was paid by the appellant out of his salary and not by the respondents. 3. Appellant during the course of his employment with the respondents suffered injury, as a result of which his right arm was amputated. Injury having been sustained during the course of his employment could not be controverted on behalf of the respondents on the basis of facts proved on record, as well as the medical evidence including disability certificate proved by PW Dr. R.K. Gupta. 4. From the disability certificate Ext. PW3/A, and school leaving, certificate Ext. PW5/F, it is proved that the permanent disability certified by the doctor is 80%, whereas date of birth of the appellant is 12.3.1952. Monthly salary as per the statement of the appellant as PW-5 was Rs. 5179/-. Factum of accident is further strengthened from the stand of the respondents in their reply. 5. In this view of the matter as well as taking note of the provisions of Section 4(1) Explanation-ll of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, monthly wage of the appellant on the date of accident is to be taken at Rs. 2000/- only for calculating compensation payable in this case. Besides this, under Section 4(1 )(b), he is entitled to an amount equal to 60% of the monthly wages which is to be multiplied with the relevant factor. Thus taking monthly wage of the appellant to be Rs. 2000/-, its 60% comes to Rs. 1200. When it is multiplied with the relevant factor as per Schedule-IV of the Act, total compensation payable comes to Rs. 1,91,760/-, (1200x159.80). 6. Thus taking monthly wage of the appellant to be Rs. 2000/-, its 60% comes to Rs. 1200. When it is multiplied with the relevant factor as per Schedule-IV of the Act, total compensation payable comes to Rs. 1,91,760/-, (1200x159.80). 6. While working out compensation payable to the appellant, learned Commissioner does not appear to have either applied the relevant factor or the correct monthly wage. Accordingly, compensation awarded is liable to be modified from Rs. 1,53,408/- to Rs. 1,91,760/-. On this amount appellant will be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on and with effect from 1.7.2000 till the date of payment/deposit of this amount. 7. Now coming to the plea of Shri Chandel for deducting Rs. one lac out of total compensation already received by the appellant. At page 20 of the file of the Commissioner below, there is a copy of letter issued by the Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. It is addressed to all the Administrative Secretaries, Heads of Departments in Himachal Pradesh, all the Boards/Corporations in H.P. and all the Universities in H.P. Its copy is also endorsed to all others concerned. This is on the following subject:- "Introduction of Indexed Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme for Regular, Adhoc, Contractual, Part Time and Dailywaged employed of State Government Departments, Boards, Corporations and Universities on Compulsory Basis. 8. Amongst other things, it says that each and every DOO would ensure deduction of Rs. 40/- per employee per annum from the salary/wages of the employees and this is to be credited in receipt head-0235-60-105-01. 9. A perusal of this scheme clearly indicates that compulsory insurance is required to be done. But at whose cost and who pays for the premium? Answer is, the employee. Therefore, plea of Shri Chandel that pursuant to aforesaid insurance scheme the appellant has received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and therefore, compensation payable to him is liable to be reduced, has been raised simply to be rejected. Respondents cannot take advantage muchless benefit of the compensation paid to a person like appellant on account of his having paid premium for it. 10. In Arvind Singh Mann v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation through its General Manager, Shimla and others, 1990 ACJ 647, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that under the HP. Respondents cannot take advantage muchless benefit of the compensation paid to a person like appellant on account of his having paid premium for it. 10. In Arvind Singh Mann v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation through its General Manager, Shimla and others, 1990 ACJ 647, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that under the HP. Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1995, a scheme was framed by the H.P. Government and under this scheme extra amount was being charged from the passengers. In case of accident, ex-gratia payments were being made by the Road Transport Corporation. In such a situation, deductions were declined by this Court out of the compensation payable under such scheme. When this judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged in appeal before Division Bench in case Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Arvind Singh Mann and others, 1991 ACJ 825, while rejecting the plea of the Road Transport Corporation, it was held as under :- "16. The question which arises is as to whether the amount payable or the amount paid under the provisions of the scheme or by way of ex-gratia payment by the appellant can be said to be pecuniary advantage as a result of death in the accident, benefit of which can be given to the tortfeasor. The levy of surcharge under the provisions of passengers and Goods Taxation Act is a statutory levy and the moment a passenger pays the amount of statutory levy, a statutory contract comes into existence between the passenger and the State. The amount of levy so collected from passenger is kept apart for being dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. It is a contribution made by the passenger himself during his lifetime. Purchase of a ticket on the part of a passenger entitles his defendants to receive the benefit of insurance amount under a contract which comes into existence on payment of the price of ticket, which includes the additional levy. This financial benefit is in essence a deferred benefit to a passenger as a result of the contract. Purchase of a ticket on the part of a passenger entitles his defendants to receive the benefit of insurance amount under a contract which comes into existence on payment of the price of ticket, which includes the additional levy. This financial benefit is in essence a deferred benefit to a passenger as a result of the contract. On the same principle, on the basis of which receipt of insurance amount, provident fund, pension or gratuity benefits by the defendants of victim are excluded, the amount paid by the State under the Scheme is to be excluded by holding that it is an act of foresight by statutory compulsion by which the passenger entered into a statutory contract with the State, due to which his dependants or heirs acquired the benefit. To take this benefit away from the rightful claimant(s) and to ensure it for the benefit of the tortfeasor is something which rightly shocks the judicial conscience, while the matter was dealt with by the learned single Judge, the State Government explained the policy behind the framing of the Scheme. It was stated that it had been framed with a view to ameliorate the lot of passengers and to minimize their loss and grief on account of the accident in addition to create confidence in them to travel in the vehicles covered by the scheme. It will be against the public policy to allow the tortfeasor to claim deduction of the amount paid by the State Government from out of a fund under the provisions of the Scheme. Had it been the intention of the legislature, it would have definitely made such a provision by expressly incorporating the same in Section 3-A of the Passengers and Goods Taxation Act. "17. The provisions for levying surcharge has been made by the State Government and the fund is also ultimately collected by it. It is not a fund which is administered by the appellant Corporation for the passengers traveling in the vehicles covered by the provisions of the Act who ultimately are to derive the benefit. The appellant being a tortfeasor cannot claim deduction for the payment received by the heirs of a passenger who had by purchasing ticket paid the amount of surcharge on the basis of a public policy. The appellant being a tortfeasor cannot claim deduction for the payment received by the heirs of a passenger who had by purchasing ticket paid the amount of surcharge on the basis of a public policy. The Supreme Court in N. Sivammal V. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation, 1985 ACJ 75 (SC), approved an award made by the Tribunal declining to deduct the amount of family pension received by the heirs of deceased under the family benefit scheme. When pecuniary advantage under the family benefit scheme, which the heirs got as a result of death in an accident, has been held not to be a pecuniary advantage liable for deduction, therefore, on the same analogy the amount received by the claimants under the provisions of the Scheme cannot be held to be deductible from the amount of compensation. 18. The amount of ex-gratia payment by way of interim relief given by appellant immediately after the accident can be said to be a payment made by a tortfeasor towards the amount of compensation though it is a voluntary payment. It cannot be said to be an amount by way of benevolence. But for the accident, the appellant would not have paid this amount. The appellant is justified in claiming benefit of such a payment, which is made in pursuance to a policy decision taken by its Board of Management. 19. In view of the above, we hold that the appellant is not entitled to have the amount paid under the provisions of the Scheme set off against the amount of compensation payable to the claimant(s). We further hold that the amount of interim relief paid voluntarily by the appellant to the claimant(s) immediately after the accident is required to be adjusted and deducted from the amount of compensation ultimately awarded under the provisions of the Act. Having dealt with this common question, we now proceed to dispose of the appeals in which there is a challenge made by the appellant to the quantum of compensation determined by the learned single Judge." 11. These decisions are complete answer to negative the plea urged by Shri Chandel to allow benefit to deduct Rs. 1,00,000/-received by the appellant under the aforesaid insurance scheme for which he had admittedly paid premium. 12. No other point was urged on behalf of the parties in this appeal. 13. These decisions are complete answer to negative the plea urged by Shri Chandel to allow benefit to deduct Rs. 1,00,000/-received by the appellant under the aforesaid insurance scheme for which he had admittedly paid premium. 12. No other point was urged on behalf of the parties in this appeal. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is partly allowed and as a result of it, awarded compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,53,408/- to Rs. 1,91,760/-. On this sum, appellant is further entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 1.7.2000 till the date of deposit/payment, whichever is earlier. 14. Before parting with this case, something needs to be said so far proceedings are being undertaken by the State Government before different Tribunals/Forums. In this case factum of accident is not disputed. Monthly wage, as well as date of birth of the appellant would be available in their contemporaneous official records. Disability certificate issued by PW-3 is dated 21.7.2000. If respondents had either applied their mind and/or had sought proper legal assistance/advice at the threshold on the basis of law, including Judge made law, at least liability for payment of interest could have been lawfully avoided. 15. Record of the Commissioner below shows that no Law Officer was deputed to properly defend the interest of the State. Only departmental representative had been appearing on different hearings throughout the proceedings. This continued for more than two years. It is not the first case where, this Court has come across such situation where the case was being dragged on unnecessarily without having any legal defence. It has come to the notice of this Court in the past also, that even where State could legitimately save money by taking suitable measures, nothing was done not only to save money, but also to ward off litigation in appropriate cases like the present one, though State is complaining about financial crunch. By taking suitable measures in this behalf, it can be save its time, money and energy. It is high time that all concerned, particularly the Chief Secretary and the Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh both should personally look into this aspect and then issue suitable instructions, if not for anything else, at least for suitably defending the cases of the State Government law officers before different Courts/Forums/Tribunals etc. 16. It is high time that all concerned, particularly the Chief Secretary and the Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh both should personally look into this aspect and then issue suitable instructions, if not for anything else, at least for suitably defending the cases of the State Government law officers before different Courts/Forums/Tribunals etc. 16. Accordingly, registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary as well as to the Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to take such remedial steps as they may consider just and proper in the best interest of the State. It is also directed that the learned Advocate General will additionally take up this matter at appropriate level in the Government so that at least in future interest of the State is protected effectively and financial loss to it is avoided. Costs on parties.