JUDGMENT : By Court These two appeals, one by the claimant, who is the employee, and another by the Railway, who is the employer, have been filed against the award dated 20th July, 2005 passed by Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Deoghar in W.C. Case No. 3 of 2004. The claimant-appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation whereas the employer, Union of India through Railway, is against the award of penalty for delayed payment of compensation. 2. The disputed facts are that the claimant-appellant was employed as Khalasi in the Eastern Railway. While he was on duty and doing repair work of wiring on electric pole, he fell down from the top of the ladder and met with an accident. He was hospitalized and got treated, but he lost his lower limbs causing permanent disablement. The Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation taking the wages of the claimant, applied the provisions of Section 4 of the Act and assessed the compensation amount at Rs. 63,964/-. However, the Commissioner held that because of the delayed payment of compensation the claimant-appellant is also entitled to get penalty which was assessed Rs. 31,982/-and also interest @ 9%. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant submitted that the amount of compensation assessed by the Commissioner is in lower side and the same is liable to be enhanced. 4. As noticed above, the compensation amount was assessed in the manner provided in Section 4 of the Act and, therefore, the compensation amount cannot be enhanced. 5. Leaned counsel appearing for the appellant-Railway, assailed the award of penalty on the ground that the amount of compensation was paid immediately after the accident. 6. Section 30 of the Workmen’s Act lays down the provisions of appeal against the award passed by the Commissioner under the Act. Proviso to Section 30 categorically provides that no appeal against award of Commissioner will lie unless substantial question of law is involved. 7. In the instant case, we are of the view that no substantial question of law is involved. We further found that because of the fact that both the lower limbs of the claimant have been totally paralyzed, the amount of compensation together with penalty and interest will meet the ends of substantial justice. 8. We, therefore, do not inclined to interfere with the award. Hence, these two appeals are dismissed.