JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The Insurer has directed the instant appeal, before this Court, wherethrough, he assails the award, pronounced by the learned Commissioner, under, Workmen's Compensation, Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, upon petition No. 9/2 of 2011 (5- 2013), (a) wherein hence compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs. 13,28,220, was assessed, vis-a-vis, the dependants' of the deceased workman, (b) AND interest @ 12% per annum, also stood levied thereon, commencing from one month hence elapsing since the date of accident, uptill, its deposit, (c) upon the afore failures, hence liability, of, penalty was made fastenable upon, the, derelicting entity/person, (d) AND the apposite afore indemnificatory liabilities also were fastened, upon, the Insurer, of, the vehicle, whereon, the deceased was borne, at the relevant time, of, its hence suffering a mishap. Substantial question of law No.1 2. The deceased Pawan Kumar, is not contested by the learned counsel for the Insurer, to, at the relevant time, to be hence employed, by one Meera Devi, arrayed, as respondent No. 1, in the afore petition. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended, with much vigor, before this Court, that, the learned Commissioner, has erroneously applied the notification, of, 22.12.2009, made effective from 18.1.2010, (a) wherethrough in substitution of the hitherto explanation-II, of Section 4, embodied in the Workmen's Compensation Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: "Amount of Compensation-Explanation-II: Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed (four thousand rupees), his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be [four thousand rupees] only; (c) Where permanent partial disablement results from the injury (i) in the case of an injury specified in Part-II of Schedule 1, such percentage of the compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury, and (ii) in the case of an injury not specified in Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity (as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner) permanently caused by the injury. 3. Conspicuously, hence, a sum of Rs. 8,000/- stands mandated, to, be the relevant income of the deceased, and, whereon, the, relevant multiplier, is, enjoined to be applied. 3. Conspicuously, hence, a sum of Rs. 8,000/- stands mandated, to, be the relevant income of the deceased, and, whereon, the, relevant multiplier, is, enjoined to be applied. The respective applicability, of, the un-amended explanation-II, borne in Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, or the applicability of the amended thereto, notification made effective from 18.1.2010, (i) is, obviously fathomable only from the date, of, occurrence of the ill-fated mishap, hence involving the vehicle, (ii) whereon the deceased was engaged as a driver, by his employer, impleaded as respondent No. 1, in the afore petition. (iii) Bearing in mind, the afore principle, and, when in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the relevant mishap, taking place, rather, the, mandate stands embodied in explanation-II, borne in Section 4 of the Act rather was applicable, (iv) AND obviously, the amendments thereto hence occurring subsequent thereto, rather stood rendered inapplicable (v) thereupon, reliance, if any, placed by the learned Commissioner, upon, the substitutions, made to explanation-II of Section 4 of the Act, substitution whereof occurred, hence, imperatively, after the occurrence of the relevant mishap, is, obviously an ill founded reliance thereon, rather the afore mandate in un-amended explanation-II, (vi)hence was rather applicable. Consequently, the requisite interference, is, hence warranted to be made. 4. In sequel, even if, the learned counsel for the Insurer, does not contest, that the deceased employee, was earning a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per mensem, yet, within the domain of unamended explanation-II, of, Section 4, of, the Act, upon, a deceased workmen's income, at the relevant time, exceeding Rs. 4000/- per mensem, his wages hence being statutorily enjoined to be computed, to be borne, only in a sum of Rs. 4000/-. (i) besides also in consonance with the mandate of clause (a) of Section 4(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, (ii) wherein prescriptions are borne, qua 50% of the afore per-mensem wages of the deceased workman rather comprising the relevant parameter, whereon, the relevant factor, is to be applied, thereupon, in tandem therewith, the compensation amount payable to the respondent, is, re-worked at Rs. 2000/-x 221.37/-, (iii) and, is computed at Rs. 4,42,740/-, along with interest @ 12% per annum, commencing, since one month elapsing, from, the accident taking place, upto its deposit, being made by the Insurer. 2000/-x 221.37/-, (iii) and, is computed at Rs. 4,42,740/-, along with interest @ 12% per annum, commencing, since one month elapsing, from, the accident taking place, upto its deposit, being made by the Insurer. Section 4 (1)(a) Amount of Compensation: (a) Where death results from the injury An amount equal to (fifty percent) of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor; Or An amount of {eighty thousand rupees) whichever is more; 5. Substantial question of law No. 3 The substantial question of law No. 3, appertaining to the driving license being fake is not pressed, hence no findings are returned on this substantial question of law. 6. Substantial question of law No. 4. Since a catena of judicial decisions, explicitly express the trite legal expostulation, that, the liability of penalty is fastenable only upon the employer, of, the deceased workman, or the disabled workman, and is not fastenable upon the Insurer, thereupon the fastening of the liability, if any, as contemplated in the operative part, of, the impugned award, is, directed to be made fastenable, upon, the employer of the deceased workman. 7. Consequently, the instant appeal is partly allowed and the award impugned, pronounced by the learned Commissioner, on 7.6.2017, upon, petition No. 9/2 of 2011(5/2013), is modified to the extent above. CMP No. 12462 of 2018 The learned Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation, Arki, District Solan, H.P. is directed to, upon an application being preferred therebefore, by the claimants, order, in consonance with the verdict, pronounced by this Court, releases of the amount, to the claimants, alongwith up-to-date interest, and, upon an application also being preferred, therebefore, by the Insurer, he is also directed to, in consonance with the verdict, pronounced by this Court, hence release the excess amount, if any, deposited by the Insurer, along with up-to-date interest. The amounts shall be disbursed to the claimants, and, to the Insurer, by remission, in their respective Saving Bank Accounts, against proper receipt and identification. The application stands disposed of.