JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the order dated 31.03.2012, passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, Una, District Una, whereby claim petition instituted on 17.01.2001, was allowed and a compensation amount of Rs. 2,19,950/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 26.08.2000 and Rs. 1000/- towards funeral expenses was granted. Compensation amount was to be deposited within one month, failing which, interest was to be calculated @ 12% per annum. Liability to pay the compensation was fastened on the appellant-Insurance Company 2. This appeal was admitted on 12.06.2012 on following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the learned Commissioner below has wrongly taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 2000/- per month in view of the statement of respondent No.3, the employer. 2. Whether the learned Commissioner was wrong in awarding the interest for the period w.e.f. 5.8.2003 to 29.1.2010 and also the penal interest. 3. Whether the assumption of jurisdiction of the learned Commissioner was violative of Section 21 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and also bad for non-issuance of notice under Section 10 of the aforesaid Act. Reasons: 3. In my considered view, this appeal merits rejection. All the three questions of law as extracted above are being answered against the appellant-insurance company for the following factual reasons(the parties are hereinafter referred as they were before the learned Commissioner below):- (i) The owner of the vehicle/employer has admitted that he had employed deceased Sh. Makhan Singh, son of the claimants, as driver on truck bearing registration No. HR-38A-6132. (ii) It is undisputed that on 25.07.2000, truck bearing No. HR-38A-6132, loaded with goods, was being driven by the deceased as an employee of respondent No.1 to Maharashtra. It was parked at Transport Nagar Chhikli Lucky Vasan Kata, Dehu Road, Police Station, Maharashtra. (iii) While spreading tarpaulin over the loaded truck, the deceased was electrocuted due to the electric current passing through the wires of electric pole adjacent to the parked truck. Post mortem report of deceased (Ext. P-1) conducted at Maharashtra Medical & Health Service, Pimpri, recorded cause of death as cardio-respiratory failure and cerebral hemorrhage due to electric shock. Reports prepared by Investigating Agency, Punne (Ext. P-2 to P-4), the inquest reports also corroborate this fact. (iv) Respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle/employer has not disputed the above factual aspects. Post mortem report of deceased (Ext. P-1) conducted at Maharashtra Medical & Health Service, Pimpri, recorded cause of death as cardio-respiratory failure and cerebral hemorrhage due to electric shock. Reports prepared by Investigating Agency, Punne (Ext. P-2 to P-4), the inquest reports also corroborate this fact. (iv) Respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle/employer has not disputed the above factual aspects. He has admitted that:- the deceased Sh. Makhan Singh was employed by him as a driver; deceased died while discharging his duties; he has also stated that deceased was in possession of valid and effective driving licence; he had seen the original driving licence of the deceased and got a photocopy of the same; he had employed the deceased as driver after taking his (deceased's) actual driving test. (v) The evidence on record, in particular Character Certificate (Ext.P-2/A) and the Middle Standard Certificate of the deceased, proves his date of birth as 12.07.1977. RW-2 Sh.Vishal Vashisht has also proved the date of birth of deceased as 12.07.1977 by producing on record the admission and withdrawal register of the school. There is no evidence to the contrary. Thus, it is to be concluded that deceased was 23 years old when he met with the fatal accident. (vi) The parents' contention was that deceased was earning Rs. 3000/- per month as a driver of respondent No.1 plus Rs. 100/- per day was being given to him by his employer as allowances for his diet. Thus, total wages of deceased Makhan singh were claimed to be Rs. 6000/- per month by the claimants. However, no documentary evidence in this regard was produced. Whereas, respondent No.1/employer stated that deceased was getting Rs. 1000/- per month as salary plus Rs. 20 per day as daily diet. However, in cross-examination, respondent No.1, stated that no written agreement was executed between him and deceased in respect of said salary. No record in respect of salary register or statement of account was produced. In the absence of any documentary and reliable oral evidence in respect of salary of the deceased, learned Commissioner was justified in taking the salary of the deceased to be not less than Rs. 3000/- per month. No record in respect of salary register or statement of account was produced. In the absence of any documentary and reliable oral evidence in respect of salary of the deceased, learned Commissioner was justified in taking the salary of the deceased to be not less than Rs. 3000/- per month. This assessment was made on the basis:- that the deceased was working as driver and, therefore, will be paid wages higher than that of casual/manual labourer; The minimum wages of the labourer declared by the State of H.P. at the relevant time were approximately Rs. 70/- to Rs. 80/- per day. Also, no infirmity can be found with the observation of the learned Commissioner in taking the daily diet allowance of the deceased at Rs. 50/- per day, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Total monthly wages of deceased were thus taken as Rs. 4500/-. 4. (i) Question of Law No.1:- (Quantum of wages) The accident occurred in the year 2000. Explanation-2 of Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act as it existed prior to its amendment in 2010 provided that when the monthly wages of a workman exceeded Rs. 2000/- then the same shall be deemed to be Rs. 2000/-only. Though, learned Commissioner calculated the total monthly wages of the deceased at Rs. 4500/-, however, in view of Section 4 of the Act as it existed at the relevant time, learned Commissioner calculated the compensation amount payable to the claimants by treating the monthly wages of deceased at Rs. 2000/-. Final calculations were arrived at in accordance with Section 4 of the Act by taking 50% of the monthly wages i.e. Rs. 1000/- and multiplying it by factor 219.95 as per Schedule-IV of the Act. Thus, question of law No.1 is redundant as despite holding that petitioner was getting monthly wages at Rs. 4500/- per month, actual calculation has been made only by treating the wages at Rs. 2000/- per month in accordance with the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. 4(ii) Question of Law No.2:- (Interest) No infirmity can be found in the order of learned Commissioner whereby interest at the rate of 9% from 26.08.2000 was awarded on compensation amount of Rs. 2,19,950/- till the realization of entire amount. 2000/- per month in accordance with the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. 4(ii) Question of Law No.2:- (Interest) No infirmity can be found in the order of learned Commissioner whereby interest at the rate of 9% from 26.08.2000 was awarded on compensation amount of Rs. 2,19,950/- till the realization of entire amount. It was only in case of failure to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 9% within a period of one month from the date of announcement of the award (31.03.2012) that the interest was to be 12% per annum. Question of law is answered against the appellant-Insurance Company. 4(iii) Question of Law No.3:- 4(iii)(a) Regarding notice under Section 10 of the Act. This question also does not arise for adjudication as the instant case is covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act. Respondent No.1/owner/employer of the deceased, stated in his examination-in-chief that immediately after the accident, respondent No.2 was informed and requested to settle the matter regarding compensation. RW-1 has not been cross-examined on this aspect of the matter. This fact has not been denied by the insurance company in its reply. No evidence whatsoever has been led by the insurance company. 4(iii)(b) Jurisdiction vis-a-vis Section 21 of the Act. Section 21 of the Workmen's Compensation Act does not debar filing of the claim petition by the dependents of deceased at a place where they ordinarily reside or where the employer has his registered office. Reference in this regard can be made to titled as Morgina Begum vs. MD, Hanuman Plantation Ltd., (2007) 11 SCC 616 wherein, it was held as under:- 5. There is no dispute that the accident in the present case took place at Nagaon and hence the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation at Nagaon also had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. However, in the present case the claim petition was filed at Tezpur because both the claimants, i.e., the father and mother of deceased Md. Rajik Ahmed, started residing at Tezpur with their son-in-law after the death of their son Md. Rajik Ahmed. The question to be decided in the present case is when the accident took place at Nagaon and the claimants were residing at the time of the death of their son at Nagaon but after the death of their son Md. Rajik Ahmed, started residing at Tezpur with their son-in-law after the death of their son Md. Rajik Ahmed. The question to be decided in the present case is when the accident took place at Nagaon and the claimants were residing at the time of the death of their son at Nagaon but after the death of their son Md. Rajik Ahmed, they had shifted to Tezpur can me Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation at Tezpur legitimately entertain the claim petition. 6. Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act clearly provides that the claim petition may be filed by the claimant where the claimant ordinarily resides. In our opinion, the expressesion 'ordinarly resides' means where the person claiming compensation normally resides at the time of filing the claim petition. The proviso to Section 21 (1) which is also relevant for the present controversy, provides that in case the Commissioner, other than the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in whcih the accident took place, entertains the claim petition then he shall give a notice to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area and the state Government concerned. The Amended Section 21 has been specifically introduced in the Act by amending Act No. 30 of 1995 with effect from 15th September, 1995 in order to benefit and facilitate the claimants. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the amendment of the Act, a copy of which has been produced before us, clearly mentions that the amendment has been brought about for benefits of the claimants viz. either the workmen or their dependents. The relevant portion of the Statement of Objects and Reasons, reads as under:- "It is also proposed to introduce provision for facilitating migrant workmen to file compensation claims before the Commissioners having jurisdiction over the area where they or their dependents ordinarily reside. Provision for transfer of compensation from one Commissioner to another has also been made." 7. The idea behind introduction of this amendment is that migrant labourers all over the country often go elsewhere to earn their livelihood. When an accident takes place then in order to facilitate the claimants they may make their claim not necessarily at the place where the accident took place but also at the place where they ordinarily reside. This amendment was introduced in the Act in 1995. When an accident takes place then in order to facilitate the claimants they may make their claim not necessarily at the place where the accident took place but also at the place where they ordinarily reside. This amendment was introduced in the Act in 1995. This was done with a very laudable object, otherwise it could cause hardship to the claimant to claim compensation under the Act. It is not possible for poor workmen or their dependents who reside in one part of the country and shift from one place to another for their livelihood to necessarily go to the place of the accident for filing a claim petition. It may be very expensive for the claimants to pursue in such a claim petition because of the financial and other hardship. It would entail the poor claimant traveling from one place to another for getting compensation. Labour statutes are for the welfare of the workmen." In the instant case, claimants in their claim petition had prayed for sending the intimation to the concerned Commissioner, Pune, Maharashtra. Steps were also taken in this regard. The record shows that umpteenth number of times, the matter was sent by learned Commissioner to the Workmen Commissioner, Pune, Maharashtra. Finally, interrogatories were sent to him, which were answered by Workmen Commissioner, Pune, Maharashtra on 16.11.2009. Provisions of Section 21 of the Act were complied with. Question of law is accordingly answered in favour of the claimants and against the appellant. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal, hence, the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.