Judgment :- (1) Re : CAN No. 6047 of 2008 After hearing the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the explanation given in the application, we are convinced that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring this appeal within the period of limitation. (2) We, thus, condone the delay in preferring the appeal. The appeal be registered, if it is, otherwise, in form. (3) With the aforesaid observation, the application, being CAN No. 6047 of 2008, is disposed of accordingly. Re : CAN No. 6048 of 2008 (4) A fresh vakalatnama filed by Mr. Singh, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company in Court today be kept with the records. (5) Since the appeal and the cross-objection can be disposed of on a pure question of law, we propose to hear out both the appeal and the cross-objection even before preparation of the paper books. (6) This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company and is directed against an award passed by the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, North Bengal Region in Claim Case No. 06 of 2006 thereby directing the Insurance Company/appellant to deposit the decretal awarded sum of 3,44,090/-within one month, failing which the Insurance Company was directed to pay interest at the rate of 20% per annum. (7) The only grievance of Mr. Singh, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, in this appeal is that in view of the provisions contained in Section 4-A(3) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, the rate of interest payable by his client should be 12% per annum, as fixed in the said statute and therefore, the Commissioner could not impose such an amount of interest upon has client. (8) In the cross-objection the grievance of the claimants, on the other hand, is twofold. (9) First, Mr. Banerjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants, has contended that the interest should be payable with the expiry of one month from the date of accident till the actual payment, as provided in the aforesaid section, secondly, according to Mr. Banerjee, the learned Tribunal below should have awarded the funeral expenses of Rs. 2,500/-, as provided in Section 4(4) of the said Act. Banerjee, the learned Tribunal below should have awarded the funeral expenses of Rs. 2,500/-, as provided in Section 4(4) of the said Act. (10) After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the provisions, mentioned above, we find that it was the duty of the Commissioner to fix the rate of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the expiry of one month from the date of accident till the actual payment. (11) The Commissioner also should have awarded a further sum of Rs. 2.500/-in terms of Section 4(4) of the Act in favour of the cross objectors. (12) We, thus, modify the award by enhancing the same by a further sum of Rs. 2,500/- and imposing interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the entire amount from the expiry of one month from the date of accident till actual payment. (13) The award impugned is modified to the extent indicated above. (14) Both the appeal and the cross-objection are, thus, disposed of. The balance amount be deposited within a month from today before the Commissioner. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the records. (15) Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Counsel appearing for the parties within a week from the date of the application being made.