JUDGMENT : Mr. A.G. Uraizee, J. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the W.C. Act') to challenge the order dated 20.7.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Godhra in Workmen Compensation Application No.8 of 1996 whereby the respondents, who are the legal heirs of deceased, Jesingbhai Sursingbhai Nayak, was driver of the appellant-Corporation who died in vehicular accident on 13.9.1994 during the course of his employment. The respondents preferred the Compensation Application No.8 of 1996 before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, who by the impugned order partly allowed the application and directed the appellant to pay the total compensation of Rs.78,824/- with 6% interest and also to pay 50% of Rs.78,824/- i.e. Rs.39,412/- as penalty. The appellant is not happy with the impugned order and therefore, the present appeal is preferred. 2. I have heard learned advocate, Mr. Kirit R. Patel for Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. M.A. Kharadi, learned advocate for the respondents. 3. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant vehemently submits that the Commissioner has fallen in error in taking the age of the deceased at 35 years without there being any cogent evidence. He further submits that the Commissioner ought not to have imposed the penalty of 50% on the awarded compensation. He, therefore, urges that the age of the deceased workman may be taken at 42 years in view of the evidence and the penalty may be quashed by allowing present appeal. 4. Mr. M.A. Kharadi, learned advocate for the respondents has supported the impugned order and submits that the same does not warrant any interference in this appeal. 5. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and having perused the impugned order, I am of the view that the contention canvassed by learned advocate for the appellant cannot be countenanced. It is undisputed fact that deceased driver Mr. Jesingbhai Sursingbhai Nayak met with an accident on 13.9.1994, during the course of his employment. It was the duty of the appellant-Corporation to have deposited the compensation with the Commissioner immediately on coming to know about the accident. It is undisputed fact that deceased driver Mr. Jesingbhai Sursingbhai Nayak met with an accident on 13.9.1994, during the course of his employment. It was the duty of the appellant-Corporation to have deposited the compensation with the Commissioner immediately on coming to know about the accident. It emerges from the record that the Corporation did not deposit the amount for around 8 years and deposited a sum of Rs.71,396/- as the compensation with the Commissioner in the year 2002 during the pendency of the application. The record reveals that the appellant did not put forth any convincing reason for not having deposited the compensation within the stipulated period. I am, therefore, of the view that the imposition of penalty @ 50% of the awarded compensation does not warrant any interference. Moreover, it was the case of the respondents that deceased was aged 35 years at the time of accident. The appellant disputed the age but did not produce any documentary evidence to bring on record the correct age of the deceased. The appellant is a statutory Corporation and it is a matter of common knowledge that documentary evidence of age and other testimonials are collected when a person enters into the service with the appellant - Corporation. Therefore, the Commissioner has rightly observed in the impugned order that the appellant could have easily produced a documentary evidence to conclusively establish the correct age of the deceased. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the impugned order does not warrant any interference in this appeal. 6. For the foregoing reason, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The order dated 20.7.2010 of learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Godhra in W.C. Application No.8 of 1996 is hereby confirmed. Parties are left to bear their own cost. 7. The amount, if any, lying in Fixed Deposit Receipts with Registry of this Court is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent with accrued interest thereon. 8. Record and Proceedings is ordered to be remitted to the lower authority.