JUDGMENT : VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act against the Order dated 22.11.2007 in W.C. No. 37 of 2005 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur. 2. Appellant herein was Opposite Party No. 2/Insurance Company, Respondents Nos., 1 and 2 were the applicants and Respondent No. 3 was the Opposite Party No. 1/owner of the offending vehicle before the learned Commissioner. For the sake of convenience and understanding, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Commissioner. 3. Applicant No. 1 herein is the mother and the Applicant No. 2 herein is the wife of the deceased-Dasari Obulesu. The deceased while attending duty on 26.11.2003 at about 3.30 A.M. as cleaner-cum-hamali for the purpose of unloading and maintaining the vehicle of Opposite Party No. 1, sustained severe head injuries and died at Tadipatri Government Hospital while taking treatment. 4. Therefore, the applicants sought compensation for the untimely death of the deceased against the owner and insurance company. The learned Commissioner granted an amount of Rs.2,55,692/- towards the compensation to the applicants and directed the opposite parties to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. 5. Grounds of Appeal: Aggrieved by the impugned Order, the Opposite Party No. 2 preferred the present appeal stating that the learned Commissioner is not correct in granting compensation more than the claim and that the employment of the deceased was not proved. 6. Heard. Perused the material on record. 7. Substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Commissioner has authority to award compensation more than the claim under the Act? (ii) Whether the liability of penalty can be fastened against the insurance company? 8. Point: Needless to say that as per Section 30 of the Compensation Act, unless there is a substantial question of law, no appeal would lie. The substantial question of law framed on behalf of the appellant is as to whether the learned Commissioner is right in granting compensation more than the claim of the applicants or not. 9. 8. Point: Needless to say that as per Section 30 of the Compensation Act, unless there is a substantial question of law, no appeal would lie. The substantial question of law framed on behalf of the appellant is as to whether the learned Commissioner is right in granting compensation more than the claim of the applicants or not. 9. Compensation has been defined in Section 2(c) of the 1923 Act to mean “compensation as provided therein.” In Balavandra Patra v. Chief Engineer, Orissa, 1987 (1) LLN 634 the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa was of the view that the Act being a benevolent statute, its construction should not cause prejudice to persons that it intends to benefit. Since Section 4 of the Act provides that the amount of compensation shall be as provided in the schedule, the term “shall” should be given its full effect even when the claimant makes a lesser claim. 10. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. R. Vishnu and Anr. 1992 ACJ 590 an interesting view was taken by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court while holding that the Commissioner is entitled to fix a higher compensation that what was claimed in appropriate cases, as follows: “It should be noted that an application filed before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner under the Act, which is a social security measure, cannot be equated to a plaint before the Court. Once application is filled with necessary details, quantification of the compensation is the duty of the Commissioner and he has to do it in accordance with law. Therefore, if in a given case, as has happened in this case, even though the claimant had asked for lesser amount, after proper adjudication when the Commissioner finds that higher compensation than what was asked for, has to be awarded, he has not only the power but also the duty to award such higher compensation.” 11. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mohd. Nasir and another, 2009 SCC Online SC 1129 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: “The third question which had been raised is as to whether any amount could be directed to be paid in excess of the amount claimed. We have noticed hereinbefore that the Act is a beneficent legislation. It imposes a statutory duty upon the Commissioner and/or the Tribunal. We have noticed hereinbefore that the Act is a beneficent legislation. It imposes a statutory duty upon the Commissioner and/or the Tribunal. Reliance has been placed in this behalf on a decision of this Court in Shyama Devi v. Union of India & Anr. (2005) 12 SCC 217 , wherein it was held: “6. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Presiding Officer has recorded a finding that the deceased was earning Rs. 1600 and was aged 56 years at the time of his death. On the basis of his last wages and age, according to Schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, a total sum of Rs. 1,05,560 was payable as compensation on the death of the deceased but since the claim was made for Rs. 84,448, we will restrict the award for the aforesaid sum as has been claimed in the claim petition. Apart from the above quantum of compensation, the appellant would be entitled to statutory interest payable on this sum. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant is awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 84,448 with statutory interest under Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The amount shall be paid by the Railways within a period of eight weeks.” 26. No principle of law has been laid down therein. No reason has been assigned in support of the said conclusion. The said decision, therefore, must be held to have been rendered in the facts and circumstance of the case and not as a law laid down in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 27. The function of Commissioner is to determine the amount of compensation as laid down under the Act. Even if no amount is claimed, the Commissioner must determine the amount which is found payable to the workman. Even in the cases arising out of the 1988 Act, it is the duty of the Tribunal to arrive at a just compensation having regard to the provisions contained in Section 168 thereof.” 12. Leaned counsel for the Appellant fairly conceded that in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the appeal is devoid of merits. Even in the cases arising out of the 1988 Act, it is the duty of the Tribunal to arrive at a just compensation having regard to the provisions contained in Section 168 thereof.” 12. Leaned counsel for the Appellant fairly conceded that in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the appeal is devoid of merits. The authority referred supra is vivid on the point of that the learned Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act has every authority to fix just compensation irrespective of the claim made by the applicants, with due regard to the provisions of the Act. Point No. 2: 13. There is some force in the contention of the insurance company on the point of penalty imposed against them as the law is no more res integra. In Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and others, 1997 (8) SC 412 it was observed that a well-knit scheme was intended by the legislature in computing liabilities and that once the compensation falls due after the period fixed, interest is automatic, whereas that it is not a penalty. Interest as such was held to be a statutory elongation of the liability of the employer to make good the principal amount of compensation within permissible time limit during which interest may not run but otherwise liability of paying interest on delayed compensation will ipso facto follows, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “In view of the aforesaid conclusion of ours the present appeals will have to be partly allowed, The impugned judgments of the High Court will stand confirmed to the extent they exonerate the respondent-insurance companies of the liability to pay the penalty imposed on the insured employers by the Workmen's Commissioner under Section 4A(3) of the Compensation Act. But the impugned judgments will be set aside to the extent to which they seek to exonerate insurance companies for meeting the claims of interest awarded on the principal compensation amounts by the Workmen's Commissioner on account of default o the insured in paying up the compensation amount within the period contemplated by Section 4A(3) of the Compensation Act.” 14. But the impugned judgments will be set aside to the extent to which they seek to exonerate insurance companies for meeting the claims of interest awarded on the principal compensation amounts by the Workmen's Commissioner on account of default o the insured in paying up the compensation amount within the period contemplated by Section 4A(3) of the Compensation Act.” 14. In Kashibhai Rambhai Pater v. Shanabhai Somabhai Parmar and others, 2000 SCC (L&S) 1105 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the Insurance Company would not be liable for the amount of penalty, but insofar as the interest is concerned, all the appellants as also the Insurance Company would be liable. The amount of penalty would be recoverable from the appellants together with the amount of compensation if not already paid by the insurance Company. 15. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, the Order impugned is not sustainable on the point of fastening liability against the insurance company to the extent of penalty. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of penalty. Rest of the claim of the Appellant is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, both parties shall bear their own costs. 17.Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.