JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bharati Sapru, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance company being aggrieved by an order passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner dated 22.2.2006 in W.C.A. case No. 24 of 2004 (Jagdish and another v. Smt. Raj Bala and others). 3. The facts and finding in this case are not disputed. A conductor and a cleaner were travelling on a Tata vehicle of the command of their employer and while they were on the way, the rope with which they had tied the goods that they were carrying, opened up. The cleaner Jagdish tried to settle the rope, in doing so, he fell into canal which was adjacent to the place where the truck had been stopped for the above reason. 4. The other person the conductor who saw him drowning in the water, made an attempt to save him and in doing so, he also drowned in the water. Thus both conductor and cleaner who were in the employment of Smt. Rajbala drowned to death during the course of employment. 5. The truck was insured and this factum was admitted to the Insurance company. The Insurance company could not produce any evidence before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner to show that the insurer had breached the terms of the policy in any manner. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to argue that the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner sitting at Meerut had no jurisdiction to entertain in this matter in view of the second proviso to Section 21 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 for reasons that the accident had taken place at Yamunanagar (Haryana) and the policy was covered at Meerut. 7. The argument raised by the appellant is not tenable at all in view of the Section 21 of the Act which reads as under: ... “21. 7. The argument raised by the appellant is not tenable at all in view of the Section 21 of the Act which reads as under: ... “21. Venue of proceedings and transfer.—(1) Where any matter under this Act is to be done by or before a Commissioner, the same shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and to any rules made hereunder, be done by or before the Commissioner for the area in which- (a) the accident took place which resulted in the injury; or (b) the workman or in case of his death, the dependent claiming the compensation ordinarily resides; or (c) the employer has his registered office; Provided that no matter shall be processed before or by a Commissioner, other than the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident took place, without his giving notice in the manner prescribed by the Central Government to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area and the State Government concerned: Provided further that....... (1-A) ..... (2) ......... (3) ......... (4) ......... (5) ........” 8. In view of the proviso, it is abundantly clear that the claimants had clear option to file their claim at a place where the accident took place, or they reside or the employer resides. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Morgina Begum v. Managing Director, Hanuma Plantation Ltd., 2008 (1) TAC 439 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is open to the claimant to file a petition where he normally resides or the employer resides. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the both sides and having considered the clear proviso to Section 21, aforesaid as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Morgina Begum (supra), I am of the opinion that the claim petition may be filed by the claimant either at the accident place or at the place where he resides or the employer’s place. As such the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant on this count is not tenable at all and is rejected. 11. As such the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant on this count is not tenable at all and is rejected. 11. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Workman Compensation Commissioner by which, an amount of compensation has been assessed looking to the age of the deceased, is not excessive and calls for no interference by this Court. However the interest as awarded is 12% which appears to be little high as the current interest of bank is 9% p.a. As such this Court modify and reduce the interest to 9% and rest of the award is confirmed. The amount which has been awarded to the claimants shall be released alongwith 9% interest forthwith. 12. The appeal stands disposed of. —————