JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 ('the Act') is directed against the order dated 30/5/2016 passed by the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur ('the Commissioner'), whereby, the Commissioner has ordered payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.3,38,880/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 26/9/2009. A penalty of Rs.80,000/- has also been imposed on respondent no.6. 2. An application was filed by the claimants - children of the deceased, Hadman Ram, through their maternal grandmother with the averments that their father was engaged by Ashok Panwar, who was contractor with the appellant and while working as Mason at the site of the appellant, on 26/9/2009 the scaffolding gave way resulting in said Hadman Ram falling down, suffering injuries and ultimately succumbing to the same. 3. Notices were issued and replies were filed by the appellant and respondent no.6. The Commissioner framed six issues. After the evidence was led, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the application could be filed through the maternal grandmother of the applicants; the application was within limitation; the accident occurred during the course of employment and under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the appellant was also liable for payment of compensation and the claimants were entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.3,38,880/- and interest @ 12% p.a. Further, penalty of Rs.80,000/- was also imposed on the respondent no.6 alone. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the application filed by the claimants through their maternal grandmother was maintainable. It was further submitted that the appellant could not be held liable as admittedly, the deceased was engaged by the respondent no.6 and that the Commissioner was not justified in awarding interest @ 12% p.a. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 6. A bare perusal of the material indicates that all five children of the deceased were minor and their mother had also died and, therefore, the application was filed through their maternal grandmother. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 6. A bare perusal of the material indicates that all five children of the deceased were minor and their mother had also died and, therefore, the application was filed through their maternal grandmother. The requirement of maintaining the application under the Act is that the applicant must be dependent on the deceased employee, admittedly, the applicants being minor children of the deceased were dependent on him and, therefore, could have maintained the application. The appellant has no locus standi to question the filing of the application through maternal grandmother till such time no objection was raised by any other person claiming himself to be the guardian of the minor children of the deceased. In view thereof, there is no substance in the objection raised by the appellant about filing of the application through maternal grandmother of the dependent children of the deceased. 7. So far as the liability of appellant is concerned, admittedly, the deceased was working on the site of the appellant, wherein, respondent no.6 was engaged as contractor and the deceased was engaged by him. The provisions of Section 12 of the Act provides that where any person in the course of or for the purpose of his trade or business contracts with any other person for the execution by or under the contract, the principal shall be liable to pay any employee employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that employee had been immediately employed by him. In view of the statutory provision, the submission made by the appellant regarding it being not liable for payment of compensation has no substance. 8. The last submission made by learned counsel for the appellant regarding payment of interest @ 12% p.a. being on the higher side also has no substance, as the provision of Section 4A (3) (a) of the Act statutorily provides for payment of interest @ 12% p.a. and it is only in case where the interest higher than 12% p.a. is to be awarded, the same cannot exceed the maximum lending rates of the Scheduled Banks and not otherwise. 9. In view of the above discussion, none of the issues raised by the appellant has any substance. 9. In view of the above discussion, none of the issues raised by the appellant has any substance. The appeal is bereft of merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.