JUDGMENT Oral Judgment: The appeal is against the Judgment and Order dated 9th of October 2006 in Workmen's Compensation Act Case No.8 of 2004 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Akola whereby the compensation was awarded in the sum of Rs.6,68,130/-. 2. Heard submissions at the bar. The appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law as to whether the learned Commissioner was justified in granting the aforesaid sum when the claimants had prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs.4,50,000/-? 3. Late Mr G.M. Chavan, aged about 22 years was a skilled labour, ITI trained in electrical fittings with good academic record and had passed the computer Course. He was only earning member of his family consisting of claimants-dependents. He was taken from Murtijapur to Talawade, Pune by his Employer M/s Sara Industries, a proprietary firm of Shri Ravindra Vinayak Navghare, on promise to pay wages at the rate of Rs.200/- per day (Rs.6000/- per Month). He was forced to work on machine and met untimely death on 20th of February 2004, in an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment with said employer. The accident was reported to the Police and the employer was prosecuted under Section 304–A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The evidence had revealed that the workman Shri G.M. Chavan had worked with M/s. Sara Industries, at Pune Factory which was run in two shifts with scope for doing the work on overtime on hourly basis. Furthermore, the evidence that his claimant father used to receive the amount of Rs.4000/- per month from his Son. Non applicant’s witness No.4 admitted that Late G. M. Chavan worked on overtime in 2nd shift as Helper. Witness No.2 for the non-applicant admitted that the Muster cum Wage Register prior to December, 2003 was not maintained, but it was filed in December, 2003. The inference do arise against the employer that he did not maintain it deliberately with ulterior purpose best known to him. Genuineness of the documents Ex.63 to 65 filed in December, 2003 was thus rightly doubted and the employer’s evidence was discarded. The evidence to counter the claim for the compensation adduced by the Non-applicant was found unsatisfactory. The inference do arise against the employer that he did not maintain it deliberately with ulterior purpose best known to him. Genuineness of the documents Ex.63 to 65 filed in December, 2003 was thus rightly doubted and the employer’s evidence was discarded. The evidence to counter the claim for the compensation adduced by the Non-applicant was found unsatisfactory. It must be observed that the safeguard was overlooked by the employer of imparting the necessary training to the workman before asking the workman to operate the machine, though he was only Helper. There was no evidence to prove that the employee Gajanan Chavan died due to his own negligence. The claim was filed by parents, brother and sister of the victim workman, who was only earning member of his family. They were dependents on his earnings. There was no evidence to the contrary as to establish that the claimants had any another source of income for their livelihood. There was no any evidence to establish that the employer paid the compensation partly or otherwise to the claimants earlier to the lodging of the claim or during the period when claim was pending. 5. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act (8 of 1923), the Employer’s liability is broadly stated as under– Section 3. Employer's liability for compensation (1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:…………. Section 4. Amount of compensation (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:- (a) where death results from the injury, an amount equal to fifty per cent of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of fifty thousand rupees whichever is more;……. 6. Schedule IV under Section 4 of the Act mentions relevant factor 222.71. The learned Commissioner had arrived at 50% of the wages based on evidence at Rs.3000/- and multiplied it with the relevant factor to conclude the sum of compensation in the sum of Rs 6,68,130/-. This is just and fair compensation prescribed by the Legislature irrespective of the demand by the claimants which may be less or more than what is awardable under the Act. This is just and fair compensation prescribed by the Legislature irrespective of the demand by the claimants which may be less or more than what is awardable under the Act. Regarding the rate of interest payable on the unpaid amount of compensation, it is payable from the date of the accident in view of the ruling in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Siby George & others reported in III (2012) ACC 367 (SC) = 2012 III CLR 6. It is duty of the employer to pay the compensation under Section 4(1) (a) of the Act as soon as personal injury is caused to the workman. There is no scope for argument to the contrary to urge that interest shall be payable from the date of the award. Reference may also be made to the ruling in Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Shrinivas Sabata and another reported in AIR 1976 SC 222 wherein four judges Bench of the Apex court decided the appeal by the Employer. The proposition thus follows that under the Act the liability of the employer to compensate the workman arises as soon as personal injury is caused to the workman resulting from the accident on account of the employment or in the course of it. Section 19 of the Act does not suspend it. The employer is also liable to pay the interest and penalty for avoidance or failure to pay the compensation. No interference is called for on this count also. 7. For all the reasons, therefore the substantial question formulated while admitting this appeal is answered in the affirmative. In the result, therefore, there is no merit in the Appeal. It is dismissed with costs.