JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. The appeal stands admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation, if the driver is not having valid and effective driving license? 2. Whether the ld. Commissioner below is justified in awarding 30% solatium on the award amount under the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923? 3. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay penal interest under the provisions of workmen Compensation Act? 4. Whether the ld. Commissioner below has erred in interpreting Section 4-A(3)(a)(i) of the Workmen Compensation Act?” 2. Insofar as question No. (1) is concerned, the issue is no longer res integra in view of law laid down by the apex Court in Kulwant Singh & others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2015) 2 SCC 186 , wherein it is held as under: “6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court erred in holding that licence for driving light motor vehicle disentitled the driver to drive 'light goods vehicle'. Reliance has been placed on the Judgments of this Court in S. Iyyapan vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another, (2013) 7 SCC 62 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesearagi and others, (2008) 3 SCC 464 . Thus, there was no breach of policy entitling the Insurance Company to recovery rights against the owner. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the view taken by the High Court. (7) We have considered the rival submissions and perused the judgments relied upon. (8) We find the judgments relied upon cover the issue in favour of the appellants. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra), this Court referred to the provisions of Sections 2(21) and (23) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which are definitions of 'light motor vehicle' and 'medium goods vehicle' respectively and the rules prescribing the forms for the licence, i.e. Rule 14 and Form No.4. It was concluded: "20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that "transport vehicle" has now been substituted for "medium goods vehicle" and "heavy goods vehicle". The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time to cover both "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle". It was concluded: "20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that "transport vehicle" has now been substituted for "medium goods vehicle" and "heavy goods vehicle". The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time to cover both "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle". A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well." (9) In S. Iyyapan (supra), the question was whether the driver who had a licence to drive 'light motor vehicle' could drive 'light motor vehicle' used as a commercial vehicle, without obtaining endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle. It was held that in such a case, the Insurance Company could not disown its liability. It was observed : "18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment [Civil Misc. Appeal No.1016 of 2002, order dated 31.10.2008 (Mad)] is, therefore, liable to be set aside." (10) No contrary view has been brought to our notice. (11) Accordingly, we are of the view that there was no breach of any condition of insurance policy, in the present case, entitling the Insurance Company to recovery rights. (12) Accordingly, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore that of the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs.” 3. Insofar as question No. (4) is concerned, this issue also stands settled in view of law laid down by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company vs. Bhagat Singh, 2012 (2) Him. L. R. 969. Wages have been correctly accounted for while determining the amount of compensation payable to the workman. 4. It is not in dispute that Hem Chand who was employed by Bhagat Ram, died during the course of his employment. L. R. 969. Wages have been correctly accounted for while determining the amount of compensation payable to the workman. 4. It is not in dispute that Hem Chand who was employed by Bhagat Ram, died during the course of his employment. He died as a result of an accident on 10.11.2006. It is not in dispute that at the time of his death, Hem Chand was of 19 years of age. It is also not in dispute that claimant Vidya Devi is mother of the deceased and that she is entitled to the claim. Salary payable to the deceased is also not in dispute. 5. In terms of the impugned Award, claim petition stands allowed to the following effect: “The amount of compensation is due to the petitioner but not the whole amount as prayed for by the petitioner. The workman compensation Act WC Act lays down the method to calculate the compensation amount. The age of the deceased at the time of the death was 19 years as per record available which is Ex. AW2/A. Further respondent No. 1 has admitted in his w/reply and statement on oath that the deceased was getting 4000/- pm. Therefore on the application of factor formula given in schedule i.e. half of the wages (subject to the maximum of Rs. 2000/-) is multiplied by the relevant factor which is 225.22 at the age of 19 years, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- which amount will be payable to the petitioner from the date of accident till the final payment of compensation as assessed supra. The assessed amount alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident. I further do consider here, the loss of future aspects of parents as the deceased was the only son and earner in old age and coming to this non pecuniary damage. It would be appropriate to console the poor harijan parents who lost their 19 years unmarried son forever. They lost their future aspects of hereditary growth thereby deprived of from last Hindu rituals (rites) even there will be none to perform/lit fire to their pyre at the time of death. This permanent pain, sufferings and unbearable mental agony through out their life cannot be compensated in terms of money but by little relief. I find this case fit to award solatium @30% on awarded amount of Rs. This permanent pain, sufferings and unbearable mental agony through out their life cannot be compensated in terms of money but by little relief. I find this case fit to award solatium @30% on awarded amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- The aforesaid amount of Rs. 7,69,500/- shall be deposited by respondent No. 2 within 30 days from the date of this order failing which 18% penal interest over and above on Prime Landing Rate @ 12% above as penalty shall be paid till the final date of deposit. The file be consigned to G.R.R.Arki after due completion.” 6. It is a settled principle of law that claimants are entitled for compensation only in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The ‘Act’ does not provide for grant of “solatium @30%”, on the awarded amount, which stands awarded by the Commissioner, Workman Compensation, in terms of the impugned award. 7. Compensation, due and payable to the workman/claimant is payable under Section 4(1)(a) which provides as under: “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 bythe relevant factor; or an amount of eighty thousand rupees, whichever is more;” … 8. Additionally claimant would have been entitled for interest and penalty in terms of Section 4-A of the Act, which in the instant case is not the position. As such, substantial question of law No. (2) is answered accordingly. 9. Insofar as substantial question of law No. (3) is concerned, again one has to only peruse the provisions of Section 4-A of the Act which does not provide for payment of penal interest. The authority is empowered to award interest, simple in nature @12% per annum, only where the employer is in default in paying the amount of compensation due, under the Act, which would be one month from the date it fell due. The apex Court in Ved Prakash Garg vs. Premi Devi & others, (1997) 8 SCC 1 , has clarified what is the meaning of expression “date it fell due” to mean, one month after the date of incident/accident. As such the question is answered accordingly. 10. The apex Court in Ved Prakash Garg vs. Premi Devi & others, (1997) 8 SCC 1 , has clarified what is the meaning of expression “date it fell due” to mean, one month after the date of incident/accident. As such the question is answered accordingly. 10. Under these circumstances, the impugned Award dated 30.4.2010 passed by Commissioner, Under Workman’s Compensation Act, Arki in Case No. 9 of 2007, titled as Vidya Devi vs. Bhagat Ram & another, is modified to the following effect: Claimant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- alongwith interest @12% from 11.12.2006 that is one month after the date of accident which took place on 10.11.2006 up to 28.8.2010, the date of deposit, which comes to Rs.2,00,466/-. As such total compensation payable comes to Rs.6,50,466/- instead of Rs.7,69,500/-. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly, as also pending application(s), if any.