JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: (Oral) - Although the substantial question of law is not framed in the memo of parties as provided in the first proviso of Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, which has been rechristened as the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, yet during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the learned Commissioner has committed an error of law in not awarding interest at the statutory rate of 12% on the amount of compensation in terms of Section 4-A (3) of the Act?”. 2. In short, the appellants are the parents of deceased Kapil Dev who was the employee/respondent of respondent No.1 on his car bearing registration No.CH-02-1614 on a monthly salary of Rs.4500/- from the past three years when on the intervening night of 15/16.6.2009 in the course of his employment, he was murdered by robbers. He was a bachelor of 24 years of age. The appellants filed the petition for compensation under the Act in which as many as four issues were framed. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. 3. Under issue Nos. 1 and 2, it was held that deceased was the employee of respondent No.1 who expired during the course of his employment. 4. While deciding issue No.3, the compensation was assessed by taking monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.4000/- and since he was considered to be 23 years of age, a sum of Rs.4,39,900/- was assessed as compensation which was ordered to be paid by the Insurance Company / respondent No.2 as policy (Ex- R1). 5. While deciding the issue of relief, only compensation amounting to Rs.4,39,900/-was ordered to be paid but no interest was either assessed or awarded. 6. Aggrieved against the order of the learned Commissioner dated 16.12.2010, only to the extent of interest, the present appeal has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Commissioner has committed a patent error of law in not awarding interest in terms of Section 4-A (3) of the Act. It is submitted that since the employer has been in default in paying the compensation due within one month from the date it fell due, the appellants were entitled to simple interest at least to the extent of 12% per annum. 8. It is submitted that since the employer has been in default in paying the compensation due within one month from the date it fell due, the appellants were entitled to simple interest at least to the extent of 12% per annum. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No.2 has submitted that the amount of compensation has fallen due with the order of learned Commissioner dated 16.12.2010 and within a period of one month thereafter, the entire amount has been paid. Therefore, there was no question of payment of any interest. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamla Chaturvedi Vs. National Insurance Co. & Ors [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 479] : 2009 (1) P.L.R. 354. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 10. Before dealing with the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, it would be worthwhile to refer to Section 4-A of the Act which is reproduced below:- 4 A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default. – (1) Compensation under section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extant claimed he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the commissioner or made to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim. (3) where any employee is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall – (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent, per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and (b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent, of such amount by way of penalty. Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed. Explanation-For the purposes of this subsection, “scheduled bank” means a bank for the time being included in the Second Schedue to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934) (3A)The interest and the penalty payable under sub-section (3) shall be paid to the workman or his dependant, as the case may be”. 11. According to the aforesaid provisions, Section 4-A (1) provides that compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it fell due. The word ‘fell due’ has now been settled by this Court which would be after a period of one month after the accident and not from the date of adjudication. Section 4-A (2) provides that where the employer do not accept the liability for compensaton to the extent claimed, he is supposed to make the provisional payment on the basis of liability accepted by him and that amount has to be deposited without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim. Section 4-A (2) provides that where the employer do not accept the liability for compensaton to the extent claimed, he is supposed to make the provisional payment on the basis of liability accepted by him and that amount has to be deposited without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim. Section 4-A (3) provides that if the employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act, within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay simple interest not less than 12% per annum on the amount of arrears and if he finds no justification for delay, he could direct the employer to pay a further sum not exceeding fifty percent of such amount by way of penalty but the penalty shall be imposed after giving a reasonable opportunity to explain. Thus, there are two types of compensation, one which is based upon acceptance of liability by the employer and the other which is decided by the Court on his denial. 12. In the present case, since there has been a denial, therefore, the claim petition was filed with respect to the accidental death dated 15.6.2009 which has ultimately been decided on 16.12.2010 after a period of 1-½ years. Thus, the amount of compensation which fell due within one month from the date of accident was not paid till 16.12.2010 for which the appellants are definitely entitled to interest at least @ 12% per annum. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is allowed and the question of law is decided in the manner indicated hereinabove. --------------