JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. K. Singha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. This Court, while admitting the appeal, by order dated 26.11.2010, formulated the following substantial question of law:- “(i) Whether the impugned judgment dated 10.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation is hit by Rule 28 of the Workmen’s Compensation Rules, 1923. 3. In course of hearing, Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged another substantial question of law:- “(i) Whether in view of non-compliance of the proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”), the impugned judgment and award has been vitiated. 4. In so far as the non-framing of issues is concerned, which is the requirement of Rule 28 of the Workmen’s Compensation Rules, this Court is of the view that in a case of death and the claim under the said Act, the only relevant issue before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, is as to whether the death of the victim arose in course of employment for which the employer was liable to pay compensation and the corollary question whether the employer was duly indemnified by a valid insurance policy at the time when the accident occurred. Therefore, this Court does not find that the non-framing of issues by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, in the present case has caused any serious prejudice to the appellant because in the present case, the appellant had duly contested the said case by filing the written statement and, as such, they were aware as to what were the issues in the present case in hand. Therefore, first substantial question of law is answered by holding that the appellant did not suffer any prejudice while non-framing of issues and, as such, the impugned judgment and award is not liable to be set aside on the said count. 5. In so far as the second substantial question of law is concerned, this Court deems it proper to refer to Section 21 of the said Act, the relevant part thereof reads as follows:- “21. Venue of proceedings and transfer. . 5. In so far as the second substantial question of law is concerned, this Court deems it proper to refer to Section 21 of the said Act, the relevant part thereof reads as follows:- “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 [employee] or in case of his death, the dependant 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:” 6. It is seen that the manner of processing an application has been laid down in the Workmen’s Compensation (Revenue of Proceedings) Rules, 1996, the Rule 3 of the said Rules is extracted below:- “3. Processing of an application.--(1) An application under Section 19 or Section 22 shall be processed before or by a Commissioner for the area in which, (a) The accident took place which resulted in the injury; or (b) The workmen or in case of his death the dependents claiming the compensation ordinarily reside; or (c) The employer has his registered office: Provided that no matter shall be processed before or by a Commissioner on that the Commissioner having the jurisdiction over the area in which the accident took place without his giving notice in Form A to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area and the State Government concerned.” 7. A notice, which is required to be given under Section 21 (1) Clause B is prescribed as Form-A appended to the said Rules. 8. The said provision contemplates that the proceedings before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, must be done before the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area mentioned in Clause (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 21. A notice, which is required to be given under Section 21 (1) Clause B is prescribed as Form-A appended to the said Rules. 8. The said provision contemplates that the proceedings before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, must be done before the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area mentioned in Clause (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 21. As per proviso appended to Sub-Section (1) of Section 21, it is provided that the first proviso to Section 21 brings an exception to the effect that if an accident had taken place within the area where the proceedings have been initiated, the same can only be processed before or by the Commissioner, other than the Commissioner, having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident took place, but not without his giving a notice in the manner prescribed by the Central Government to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area and to the State Government concerned. Therefore, to find out whether the compliance of the aforesaid provisions was done in the present case or not, this Court has perused the records received from the said Commissioner. 9. As per Exhibit-2, which is Form-54, the accident took place on 30.11.2006 at about 10:20 PM near Nara Narayan Khetra, Bilasipara, N.H. -31 and the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the appellant having office at Coochbehar, Bishwa Singh Road, District Coochbehar, West Bengal. 10. As per the claim petition, it is found that the claimant was a resident of village Ghugumari, Kotwali, District Coochbehar. Even the owner was a resident of Reba Bhawan, P.V.N.N. Road, District Coochbehar, West Bengal. Therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, to issue a notice to the jurisdictional Commissioner as well as the State Government concerned. 11. The fact of the matter is that in the present case, the compliance of Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules as well as first proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 21 has not been complied with by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Dhubri. Moreover, even in the impugned judgment and award, the learned Commissioner has not disclosed about the issuance of the statutory notice as required under the Act. Moreover, even in the impugned judgment and award, the learned Commissioner has not disclosed about the issuance of the statutory notice as required under the Act. Therefore, the second substantial question of law as formulated today is decided to the effect that in the present case, the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice as contemplated under the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of the Workmen’s Compensation (Revenue of Proceedings) Rules, 1996, has not been complied with. 12. Nevertheless, this Court is, however, of the view that in the present case, the accident took place in the year 2006 and the trial of the case had begun in the year 2007, culminating in the judgment and award dated 10.12.2009. It is also seen that the evidence of the witnesses has been recorded and they have been duly cross-examined. Moreover, on perusal of the written statement filed by the appellant, it is not seen that the issue of territorial jurisdiction had been taken at the first available opportunity. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no serious prejudice has been suffered by the appellant by the impugned judgment and award. 13. In the present case, it is found that the income of the deceased and considering the age of the deceased, the correct multiplier/factor was applied for determining the compensation, which is found to be in accordance with the law. The income of the deceased was determined @ Rs. 4,000/- per month, the quantum taken for calculating the compensation was determined @ Rs.2,000/- and applied the factor of 207.98, which is in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act read with Schedule-IV of the said Act. Moreover, the interest was ordered to be paid @ 6% per annum from the compensation of amount from the date of filing of the case, i.e., 09.01.2017, which is fully justified. Therefore, on merit, as regards quantum of compensation, no interference with the impugned award is warranted. 14. However, as procedural lapse has been found in the present case, the matter is relegated back to the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Dhubri, who would only issue a formal notice to the jurisdictional Tribunal at Coochbehar as well as to the Government of West Bengal, which would constitute a formal compliance of the said provisions without re-opening the trial afresh. However, as procedural lapse has been found in the present case, the matter is relegated back to the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Dhubri, who would only issue a formal notice to the jurisdictional Tribunal at Coochbehar as well as to the Government of West Bengal, which would constitute a formal compliance of the said provisions without re-opening the trial afresh. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal will give 1 (one) month’s time from the date of service of said notice before requiring the appellant to deposit the balance amount of compensation together with interest before the learned Commissioner in terms of this order and thereafter, release the said balance compensation to the respondent No. 1/claimant on due identification and in compliance with the formalities associated with the release of the money. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the meanwhile, the appellant had already deposited 50% of the awarded amount before the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Dhubri. Therefore, the appellant is required to deposit the balance amount before the said Commissioner within a period of 1 month from today. 16. The appeal stands partly allowed. Except requiring compliance of provisions of the notice as required under proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of the Act, as this order has been passed under the facts unique to this case, this order directing a post award service of aforesaid statutory notice is not to be cited as a precedent in future because as per law, the same is to be done before the commencement of proceedings. 17. Send back the LCR.