JUDGMENT : Dev Darshan Sud, J. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the Commissioner, under Workmen Compensation Act, Chamba District Chamba (HP). On the evidence, the Commissioner awarded a sum of 4,68,855/- for the death of Shri Ravinder Kumar to the claimants being his wife, minor children and mother. The appeal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act is justified to calculate the principle amount of compensation by considering the wage of deceased for Rs. 6000/- per month especially when the employer has categorically submitted that deceased was being paid Rs. 3500/- per month as monthly wages? (2) Whether the impugned award is based upon misreading, mis-appreciation and misconstruction of Section 4(1) (a) Explanation II and Section 4A (1) (2) and 3-A in so much as the principle amount of compensation should have been 50% of Rs. 3500 i.e. Rs. 1750 x 203.85 (relevant factor) = Rs. 356737.50 Ps. and the interest at the rate of 12% per annum should have been awarded from the 30 days from the day when it become due and the penalty is not to be burdened by the insurer? (3) That the learned Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act is justified to impose liability of interest from the date of the accident and further by burdening the penalty amounting to 25% of principle amount on the insurer instead of insured? 2. Adverting to the first question, all that I need say is that on the ultimate analysis, what the Insurance Company urges is accepted, as the gospel truth, in that event, the only difference would be that the datum figure would be reduced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.1750/-. I am not inclined to accept this submission on behalf of the Insurance Company since the employer states that the salary paid by him to the deceased was Rs.3500/- per month which has to be accepted as such. What I find from the judgment is that employer has made this statement for the reason that he wants to save his skin. The claimants, who were dependent upon the deceased, would be in better position to state that what he was getting. What I find from the judgment is that employer has made this statement for the reason that he wants to save his skin. The claimants, who were dependent upon the deceased, would be in better position to state that what he was getting. In the ultimate analysis, this amount would not make any difference if minimum wages would be taken as Rs.150/- per day for a driver in the year 2000 and the total emoluments would be worked out to Rs.4500/- per month. I find that the Commissioner has taken Rs.2000/- (50% of Rs.4000/- which is the maximum amount). Therefore, this question is answered against the Insurance Company. On the question of payment of penalty, I find that the decision in FAO (WCA) 137 of 2005, titled Sunil Kumar vs. Lalita Devi, Latest HLJ 2009(HP) 700 settles the issue. Appeal stands disposed of.