JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—When this case was taken up today, learned Counsel for the parties submitted that instead of taking up the application for release of amount, keeping in view the limited controversy involved in the matter, this appeal may be finally heard and disposed of. 2. Keeping in view this joint prayer, as well as the controversy involved in this appeal, matter was finally heard and is being disposed of. 3. Admitted facts of this case are that deceased Prem Chand was employed as a driver with Shri Roop Chand-respondent No. 2 (owner of the vehicle in question). Respondent No. 1 Smt. Sunita is Prem Chands widow, respondent No. 3 is his mother, respondent No. 4 is his brother and respondents 5 and 6 are his sisters. It was not disputed at the time of hearing that vehicle involved in the accident bearing Registration No. HP-07-2061 was owned by Roop Chand and was insured with the appellant-insurance company. Prem Chand having died in the accident during the course of his employment with Roop Chand-insured is another fact that stands duly proved on record, is also not disputed. 4. In this background, Shri Sood, learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer on a substantial question of law urged, that keeping in view the date of accident death i.e. 23.5.1995, relevant wage to be considered for calculating the compensation of the deceased is Rs. 1,000/- per month under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. According to him, any wage beyond Rs. 1,000/- per month has no relevance while calculating the compensation. Further per him, 50% of Rs. 1,000/- has to be multiplied with the relevant factor as contained in Schedule-IV attached to the Workmens Compensation Act. Proved age of the deceased driver Prem Chand in this case is 30 years. 5. Learned Counsel for the parties further submitted that relevant factor in this case is 207.98. 6. In view of the legal position, compensation payable in the present case on the date of accident works out to Rs. 1,03,990/- (500x207.98). Whereas the Commissioner awarded Rs. 1,55,985/- besides interest and penalty on it. 7. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 3 to 6 urged that provisions of Workmens Compensation Act, being beneficial piece of legislation, amendment carried out w.e.f. 15.9.1995, has to be treated as retrospectively applicable. Therefore, according to them, present appeal merits dismissal. 8. Whereas the Commissioner awarded Rs. 1,55,985/- besides interest and penalty on it. 7. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 3 to 6 urged that provisions of Workmens Compensation Act, being beneficial piece of legislation, amendment carried out w.e.f. 15.9.1995, has to be treated as retrospectively applicable. Therefore, according to them, present appeal merits dismissal. 8. In this behalf, it may be appropriate to observe that on the date of accident rights of the parties i.e. respondents No. 1 and 3 to 6, and the liability of the insurance company and also of the owner of the vehicle, were fructified. By amending Section 4 of the Workmen Compensation Act, w.e.f. 15.9.1995, its implication is that liability is enhanced against both, appellant as well as respondent No. 2. 9. In these circumstances, submission urged on behalf of the claimants is without merit and thus liable to be rejected. Reason being that the amendment of substantive provision of law, which enhances financial liability, cannot be said to be procedural in nature, so as to make it retrospectively applicable. Further it is by now well settled, that unless the amended provision is made retrospectively applicable, it has to be prospective in its application. In this behalf reliance is being placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court under Workmen Compensation Act in United India Insurance Co, Ltd. v. Smt. Nako alias Naiku Devi and others and other connected appeals, 1996 (1) Sim. L.C. 370. What was held in this case and is relevant for the purpose of present appeal, is extracted hereinbelow : "8. We may refer to Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edn. p.215, regarding retrospective operation of statutes in the following terms : "Upon the presumption that the legislature does not intend that is unjust rests the leaning against giving certain statutes a retrospective operation. They are construed as operating only in cases or on facts which come into existence after the statutes were passed unless a retrospective effect is clearly intended. It is a fundamental rule of English law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act or arises by necessary distinct implication.” 9. It is a fundamental rule of English law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act or arises by necessary distinct implication.” 9. Applying the above settled law of interpretation, we hold that as the accident took place prior to the amendment of the Schedule IV of the Act, the compensation has to be assessed according to un-amended Schedule. We say so as if retrospective operation is given to the amended Schedule, it will take away the rights of the parties, namely, the owner as well as the Insurance Company, in this regard. Therefore, the Commissioner erred in law in assessing the compensation under the amended Schedule IV." 10. To similar effect are also the decisions of this Court in H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. v. Ganu Devi and others, Latest HLJ 2004(HP) 945 and in Executive Engineer, B&R, HPPWD, Solan and another v. Kewal Ram, FAO No. 261 of 2003 decided on 17.7.2004. 11. Similar view has been expressed by various High Courts, namely, Punjab and Haryana High Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Moola Singh and others, 1970 ACJ 401, Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in Uttam v. The Corporation of the City of Nagpur, 1981 (1) ILR (Bombay Series) 789, Allahabad High Court in 17.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Abdul Hameed, 1985 ACJ 832 and Kerala High Court in Kochu Velu v. Purakkattu Joseph and others, 1984 ACJ 630. 12. A perusal of the impugned award shows that penalty has also been levied in the impugned award on the awarded sum of Rs. 1,55,985/ -. This amount has been fixed at Rs. 77,992/-. Since it has been held that compensation payable is Rs. 1,03,990/- only, penalty also needs to be reduced to its 50%. This comes to Rs. 51,995/- being 50% of the awarded compensation. This is being ordered to bring the amount as per law. 13. Interest at the rate of 12% is also payable on the sum of Rs. 1,03,990/- w.e.f. 1.7.1995 to 3.8.1998, the date on which the amount was deposited with the Commissioner below as per the certificate at page 18 of the paper book of this appeal. 14. This is being ordered to bring the amount as per law. 13. Interest at the rate of 12% is also payable on the sum of Rs. 1,03,990/- w.e.f. 1.7.1995 to 3.8.1998, the date on which the amount was deposited with the Commissioner below as per the certificate at page 18 of the paper book of this appeal. 14. Registry is now directed to retain the amount in terms of this judgment and to remit the balance amount with upto date interest if any to the bank account of the appellant-insurance company, number whereof Mr. Sood submitted, will be furnished within two weeks. Out of the awarded compensation, respondent No. 1 Smt. Sunita will get Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest whereas rest of the amount will be apportioned equally amongst respondents No. 3 to 6. Any amount received by any one of them shall be deducted from share of such recipient in terms of this judgment. 15. No other point was urged. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. CMP No. 248 of 2005 No order in view of the disposal of the main appeal. Application stands disposed of. Appeal dismissed.