JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment recorded by the learned Employees Commissioner, Sirmaur, District at Nahan while his exercising powers under the Employee’s Compensation Act. 2. In the impugned pronouncement, the learned Commissioner, had assessed compensation upon the claimants, who are evidently the successors-in-interest of deceased Hem Chand, compensation whereof, is comprised in a sum of Rs.6,55,410/- alongwith interest @12% and 50% penalty of Rs. 327705/- The apposite liability with respect to its defrayment vis-à-vis the claimants, stood fastened upon the insurer. This Court admitted the appeal on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the learned Commissioner below is right in taking monthly wages of the deceased as Rs.6000/- instead Rs.4000/- per month when the accident has taken place prior to the amendment dated 15.7.2010 vide notification dated S.O. 1258(E). 2. Whether the appellant being insurer is liable to pay penalty under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923? 3. The solitary submission made by the counsel for the insurer for his concerting to beget reversal of the impugned pronouncement, is with respect to the learned Commissioner in stark discordance with the mandate of the relevant statutory principles hence mis-assessing compensation amount upon the claimants, infractions whereof stand espoused, to be comprised, in (a) the learned Commissioner, though, not falling in error while taking Rs.6000/- per mensem, as wages/salary drawn by the deceased, from, his employment under respondent No.2, yet his falling into error, in applying upon the aforesaid figure of salary/wages per mensem, the relevant statutory principles, ‘whereas’ in face of prevalence, at the relevant time of occurrence, of, the ill-fated mishap, ‘of’ the mandate of explanation II to Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), explanation whereof stood subsequent thereto deleted, from the statute book, hence enjoined the Commissioner, to mete reverence to the mandate occurring in explanation II to Section 4 of the Act, contents whereof stand extracted hereinafter, irreverence whereof by him, “whereas” his irreverence thereto hence stains the impugned pronouncement. “Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed (6000/- six thousand rupees) his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be (four thousand rupees) only” 4. “Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed (6000/- six thousand rupees) his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be (four thousand rupees) only” 4. The counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that the deceased workman, was drawing wages/salary comprised in a sum of Rs.5500/- per mensem, to figure whereof another sum of Rs.50/- per day, is to be added, its, comprising the daily allowance received by the deceased workman from his relevant employment, hence the total sum of wages per mensem received by the workman from his employer, while hence being comprised in a sum of Rs.5,500/-,(i) in sequel thereof, with the apposite explanation, holding, force at the relevant time of occurrence of the ill-fated mishap, enjoined the commissioner to mete reverence thereto (iii) significantly with a statutory contemplation occurring therein, that with the wages of a workman evidently exceeding Rs.6000/-, as wages whereof, of the deceased in the instant case exceed Rs.4000/-,(iii) thereupon his monthly wages for the purposes of application thereon, of, the relevant statutory principles, hence attracting the mandate of clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, wherein, his wages were enjoined to be restricted in a sum of Rs.4000/- per mensem only. He submits that the aforesaid mandate of explanation II of the Act, has been irrevered by the learned commissioner. The aforesaid submission addressed, before, this Court garners immense strength, from, the evident fact, of applicability at the relevant time, of the mandate of the aforesaid explanation II of the Act besides also obviously the explanation aforesaid holding prevalence also clout at the time when the ill-fated mishap involving the offending vehicle occurred, in vehicle whereof, the deceased was manning its driver’s seat, his standing engaged as a driver thereon by respondent No.1. In aftermath, the learned Commissioner,(ii) ‘was’, given the existence of formidable evidence qua the deceased workman, drawing, from his relevant employment per mensem salary/wages, constituted in a sum of Rs.5,500/- (v) hence ‘enjoined’ by the mandate of explanation II, of, the Act, to, restrict the monthly wages of the deceased workman in a sum of (vi) Rs.4000/- besides was enjoined to apply thereon, the mandate of clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Act However, he has omitted to do so. Consequently, the award of the learned Commissioner warrants interference. Consequently, the award of the learned Commissioner warrants interference. In aftermath while applying the principle(s) embedded in clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, provisions whereof stood extracted hereinafter:- 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 eighty thousand rupees whichever is more: Whereby, only, with respect to 50% of the statutory, wage(s), of, the deceased employee, the enjoined statutory principle(s) warrant their application, thereon, (ii) consequently this Court concludes that the wages per mensem, of, the deceased workman by applying the relevant statutory principle(s) hence being comprised in a sum of Rs.2000/- thereupon by applying the relevant statutory factor applicable thereon i.e. 188.47 the compensation amount defrayable to the claimants, is, quantified in a sum of Rs.4,36,940/- 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the sum of Rs.50/- paid by the employer to the deceased workman as “daily allowance” being excludable, from, the definition of ‘wages’, occurring in Section 2(m) of the Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, “wages includes any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money or other than a travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession or a contribution paid by the employer of a workman towards any pension or provident fund or a sum paid to a workman to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment.” he hence proceeds, to, contend (i) that with the play of apposite explanation II of the Act, with, respect to the facts at hand ‘erupting’ only on the deceased workman, evidently, drawing wages exceeding Rs.4000/- per mensem, whereas, after exclusion of Rs.50/- per day, from, the aforesaid figure of wages per mensem received by the deceased workman from his employer, (ii) the wages/salary per mensem, drawn, by the workman from his relevant employer being comprised in a sum of Rs.4000/-, hence with the principle held in the apposite explanation II of the Act, holding, its play, only, when the wages per mensem of a deceased workman exceed Rs.4000/- (iii) whereas, hence with the wages of the deceased workman standing comprised in a sum of Rs.4,000/-, in sequel, the award of the learned Commissioner warrants no interference. However, the aforesaid submission, is, unacceptable to this Court, significantly, though, the definition of ‘wages’ occurring in ‘M’ of Section 2 of the Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “(m) ‘wages’ includes any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money, other than a travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession or a contribution paid by the employer of a workman towards any pension or provident fund or a sum paid to a workman to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment.” does include within the purview of ‘wages’ any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money, (v) yet it excludes, from its, ambit a travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession or a contribution paid by the employer of a workman, towards, any pension or provident fund or “a sum paid to a workman to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment”. However, no evidence has surfaced, comprised in apposite suggestions, in respect thereto being put by the counsel for the insurer, while holding the claimants or the owner to a rigorous cross-examination, personificatory, of Rs.50/- per day, paid to the deceased, falling within the ambit of ‘special expenses’ entailed upon him, by the nature of his employment. In absence of the aforesaid apposite suggestion(s) with respect to the aforesaid facet also with a minimal sum of Rs.50/- per day standing regularly paid to the deceased workman, by his employer, for his performing his duties, ‘cannot’ per se render them to fall within the ambit of ‘special expenses’, especially, when the signification borne by the coinage ‘special expenses’ is qua theirs being defrayable to the workman concerned only for his performing special/emergent tasks. However, the signification borne by the aforesaid phraseology ‘special expenses’ occurring in Section 2(m) of the Act, cannot, cover any regularly paid daily allowance by the employer, to the workman, during, the course of his performing the callings of his avocation, especially, when in performance thereof, it, remains undemonstrated that he was performing any special task hence warranting its standing defrayed to him concomitantly for assuring its performance by him. Consequently, there is no merit in this submission which is also rejected. 6. The substantial question(s) of law are answered accordingly. The appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, there is no merit in this submission which is also rejected. 6. The substantial question(s) of law are answered accordingly. The appeal is partly allowed. The award of the learned Commissioner is modified to the extent that the respondents/claimants 1 and 2 herein shall be entitled to compensation comprised in a sum of Rs.4,36,940/- alongwith interest @ 12 per cent per annum to be levied thereon, since, the elapsing of one month from the accident. Statutory penalty, for, omission(s) of the employer to beget satiation of the mandate of Section 4-A, is quantified, at, Rs.30,000/- liability whereof stands fastened upon the employers i.e. respondents No. 1 and 2 herein. The compensation amount shall be equally apportioned amongst the claimants/ respondents No. 1 and 2 herein.