Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State being aggrieved with the award of Workmen Compensation Commissioner dated 30/6/1997, whereby, the learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 1,32,413/ - on account of death of one Devi Lal Choudhary on 31/10/1992 during the course of employment when he was going on truck No. RJ27 -G -0143 from Banswara to Doongarpur on Government duty and met with an accident. The claimants including his widow, parents and brother filed claim petition before the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner. Since, it also came before the learned Commissioner that wife of the deceased Smt. Hira had already taken divorce on 23/8/1992 prior to the date of death, therefore, an objection was raised as to whether she was entitled to compensation or not. However, in this regard, the learned Commissioner observed that compensation awarded shall be disbursed subject to succession certificate being obtained by the claimants.
(2.) IN the present appeal filed by the State, Mr. R.K. Soni, learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the notice under Section 10, as required under the Act, was not given to the appellant and secondly there was no justification for imposition of penalty on the State for alleged delay in payment of compensation under Section 4A of the Act. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents while opposing the said appeal as well as arguing for cross objection filed by them urged that; (i) the salary in question drawn at the time of death of deceased employee was Rs. 1625/ - per month, whereas, learned Commissioner has taken the salary of the deceased at Rs. 1000/ - per month for determining the compensation & (ii) though under the Act prescribed rate of interest is 12% p.a., the learned Commissioner has awarded interest @ 6% p.a. Learned Counsel for the respondents claimants also submitted that the imposition of penalty was also justified because the compensation was required to be paid/deposited immediately within one month from the date of death itself and, therefore, the same cannot be validly assailed by the State.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsels at some length and after perusal of the impugned award, it appears to this Court that the impugned award deserves to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded back to the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner as prima facie it appears that there was no justification for determining the salary of the deceased only at Rs. 1000/ - as against the admitted monthly salary being drawn by the deceased at Rs. 1625/ -. Further, the reduction of rate of interest suo moto by the learned Commissioner to 6% p.a also seems to be without any basis. As far as question of penalty is concerned, learned Commissioner has to form an opinion as to whether the State/Employer had defaulted in deposit of such compensation without any valid reason or not. No such opinion is found to be there in the impugned award.;