RAFIQ, J.—Defect is waived. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.8,61,120/- that was awarded by the Commissioner under Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 for Jaipur District-II vide award dated 28/06/2010. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in assailing the award of the Commissioner Workman Compensation is that the Commissioner erred in law while accepting the income of deceased-workman Shakeel Khan, who was employed with employer-respondent No.2-M/s.Best Roadways Ltd. as a Driver only at Rs.8,000/-, whereas respondent No.2 was paying him salary of Rs.13,500/- and atleast monthly salary of Rs.9,000/- @Rs.50/- per day should have been computed. Rate of interest @12% p.a. is also towards the lower side and interest should have been awarded atleast @18% p.a. Learned Commissioner also erred in law while not awarding 50% towards penalty in terms of clause (b) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 4A of The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the “Act of 1923”) because employer defaulted in making compensation. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned-award, I find that so far as not accepting the monthly salary of the deceased-workman to be of Rs.13,500/- is concerned, the claimants failed to prove this much of salary of the deceased-workman before the Commissioner. Therefore, learned Commissioner did not commit any error in accepting the monthly salary of the workman to be of Rs.8,000/- on the basis of evidence on record. Rate of interest @12% p.a. cannot be said to be on lower side. These days, rate of interest @7.5% p.a. or in some cases @6% p.a. is being awarded. Rate of interest of @12% p.a. is rather towards the higher side. For not awarding 50% penalty in terms of clause (b) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 4A of the Act of 1923, the learned Commissioner has already issued notices to respondent No.2 because provisions provide for passing the order of 50% penalty only after hearing the affected party. Factor of 215.28 has also rightly been applied for the age of 26 years as provided in the Ist Schedule of the Act of 1923. Learned Commissioner has passed the award rather considering the notification of the Government dated 31/5/2010, whereby wages of the skilled labour were enhanced from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month. There is no error apparent on the face of the award of the Commissioner. Learned Commissioner has passed the award rather considering the notification of the Government dated 31/5/2010, whereby wages of the skilled labour were enhanced from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month. There is no error apparent on the face of the award of the Commissioner. The award is just and reasonable and does not require interference by this Court. 5. I do not find any merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.