JUDGMENT Alok Mathur, J. Heard Sri. D. P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel fon behalf of respondent No.1 as well as Sri. Onkar Pandey for respondent No.2. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.9.2011 whereby Commissioner, Workman's Compensation has awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 1,62,685/- as compensation with regard to death of late Surendra Kumar, who was son of the petitioner. 3. The facts in brief are that the deceased Surendra Kumar was working as Computer Operator in the office of opposite party No.2 i.e. Sunny Gas Service Katehry Bazar, Post Katehry, District Ambedkar Nagar on 4.7.2008 where the petitioner had worked during the day time and had gone to home after working hours. To consider that the work was still remaining he was called back to the office where he worked till late night in the office of respondent No.2. In the morning two persons were found in the premises of respondent No.2 agency who had been poisoned and they were immediately taken to the hospital. The other person was Krishna Lal who was brother of the owner of the agency i.e. Bharat Lal. The son of the petitioner Surendra Kumar died on reaching the hospital but Krishna Lal survived. With regard to the said incident first information report was lodged under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. 4. As no compensation was given by the agency for the death of Surendra Kumar the petitioners filed claim under Section 10 of the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 which was registered and notices were issued to respondent No.2. On receipt of the said notice the respondents immediately deposited an amount of Rs. 1,63,000/- before the Commissioner where it came on record that the age of Surendra Kumar was 25 years at the time of the said incident and he was receiving salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. It also came on record that there was inimical relationship between Krishna Lal and one Rama Shankar because Krishna Lal allegedly had illicit relationship with his wife and he wanted to kill Krishna Lal. It is stated that on account of the said fact he had administered poison in the food which was consumed by Surendra Kumar and Krishna Lal. Unfortunately Krishna Lal survived but son of the petitioners succumbed to the poison. 5. It is stated that on account of the said fact he had administered poison in the food which was consumed by Surendra Kumar and Krishna Lal. Unfortunately Krishna Lal survived but son of the petitioners succumbed to the poison. 5. The compensation Commissioner has dealt with all these arguments and returned a finding that the gas agency is liable to pay compensation under the Act of 1923 and accordingly as per the provisions contained in Schedule 4 considering the age of the deceased to be 25 years he applied the factor of 216.91 and multiplied the same with three months' salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month and granted compensation for an amount of Rs. 1,62,685/- by means of order dated 15.9.2011. In the said order no penalty was imposed upon the respondents considering the fact that immediately after filing of the said claim they had deposited Rs. 1,63,000/- before the Commissioner and accordingly he was of the view that there was no delay in depositing the said amount. 6. Petitioner has lastly submitted that date of accident was 04.05.2008, on which date the petitioner had succumbed to food poisoning during course of his employment and the compensation was deposited during proceedings by the employer on 29.12.2009. It is submitted that amount of compensation was due to the petitioner on the date of accident and the employer should have been liable to pay the interest from 04.05.2008 itself, while, no interest in the present case has been granted to the petitioner by the Compensation Commissioner considering the fact that at the time of filing of the claim the employer has deposited the compensation before the authority itself. 7. The petitioner had preferred a review stating that there was, in fact, delay in depositing the said amount and consequently the said revision was partly allowed and the respondents were directed to pay further pay Rs. 10,000/- towards penalty. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said order has submitted that this is a case where the deceased was aged about 25 years and died at the work place. He submits that he was trained in running computer and had a very bright future and a merger amount of compensation has been granted by the Commissioner and consequently by means of the present writ petition has prayed that quantum of compensation be enhanced. 9. He submits that he was trained in running computer and had a very bright future and a merger amount of compensation has been granted by the Commissioner and consequently by means of the present writ petition has prayed that quantum of compensation be enhanced. 9. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. He submits that the petitioner has been granted compensation as prescribed under the said Act and the amount of compensation cannot further be enhanced. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Considering the rival contentions, this Court has also looked into the provisions of Employees Compensation Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2003"). In case an employee suffers an accident then compensation has to be paid in terms of Section 3 of the Act, 2003. It has been further provided that compensation has to be paid in terms of provisions contained in the Act, 2003 itself. Section 4 of the Act, 2003 further provides for amount of compensation and according to explanation I to Section 4 of the Act, 2003 compensation has to be paid as per Schedule IV of the Act, 2003. 12. Considering the fact that petitioner was 25 years of age and was entitled to receive 216.91 times of salary, which is the factor computed as per Schedule IV of the Act, 2003. The Compensation Commissioner has computed the said claim as per terms of Act, 1923. This Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India while reviewing the order of Compensation Commissioner, is entitled to see as to whether he has proceeded in accordance with law and that the authority has considered the relevant material on record. It is noticed that the Compensation Commissioner has considered that salary of the petitioner was Rs. 1500/- per month and the deceased being 25 years of age has computed the compensation considering the factor of 216.91 and accordingly held that petitioner is entitled for compensation amounting to Rs. 1,62,685/-. 13. It is not the case that either the petitioner was getting salary more than Rs. 1500/- per month or that his age was not 25 years and accordingly there is no material circumstance for this Court to take into consideration that as per Schedule IV, the higher compensation could have been granted to the petitioner. 14. 1,62,685/-. 13. It is not the case that either the petitioner was getting salary more than Rs. 1500/- per month or that his age was not 25 years and accordingly there is no material circumstance for this Court to take into consideration that as per Schedule IV, the higher compensation could have been granted to the petitioner. 14. The Compensation Commissioner while deciding the claim of the petitioner can have allowed the claim only under the Act, 2003 and could not have granted compensation higher than what has been provided under Schedule 14. The exercise of discretion is extremely limited and once the salary and age have been determined then only the 'factor' has to be taken into consideration for computing the compensation. 15. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground for interference with regard to quantum of compensation. Accordingly, claim of petitioner in this regard is rejected. 16. With regard to amount of interest it is noticed that interest should have been granted from the date of accident. The Compensation Commissioner while rejecting the plea of the petitioner in this regard has stated that petitioner has no ground to claim interest inasmuch as as soon as claim was filed the employer without any delay has deposited Rs. 1,65,000/- before the Commissioner on 29.12.2009. This Court is of the considered view that Compensation Commissioner has fell into error while computing interest in the present case. The interest was liable to be granted to the petitioner from the date of accident i.e. 04.05.2008. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and Another, (1976) 1 SCC 289 , where the Apex Court in para 7 has observed as under :- "7. Section 3 of the Act deals with the employer's liability for compensation. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that the employer shall be liable to pay compensation if "personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment". It was not the case of the employer that the right to compensation was taken away under sub-section (5) of Section 3 because of the institution of a suit in a civil court for damages, in respect of the injury, against the employer or any other person. It was not the case of the employer that the right to compensation was taken away under sub-section (5) of Section 3 because of the institution of a suit in a civil court for damages, in respect of the injury, against the employer or any other person. The employer therefore became liable to pay the compensation a soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the workman by the accident which admittedly arose out of and in the course of the employment. It is therefore futile to contend that the compensation did not fall due until after the Commissioner's order dated May 6, 1969 under Section 19. What the section provides is that if any question arises in any proceeding under the Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation or as to the amount or duration of the compensation it shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. There is therefore nothing to justify the argument that the employer's liability to pay compensation under Section 3, in respect of the injury, was suspended until after the settlement contemplated by Section 19. The appellant was thus liable to pay compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the appellant, and there is no justification for the argument to the contrary." 17. Section 4-A of the Act, 2003 provides that compensation has to be paid when it falls due. it has further been provided that in case petitioner is not paid from first month which fell due, it would attract provisions of Schedule I of Section 4-A(3) of the Act, 2003. Accordingly, undisputedly the petitioner was entitled for compensation from the first month from the said accident and hence interest should have been paid to him from 05.06.2008. 18. In the light of above, present writ petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to pay interest from 05.06.2008 i.e. one month after the death of accident, on the amount which fell due as computed by the Compensation Commissioner.