MILAP CHANDRA,J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 30, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Udaipur (hereinafter to be called 'the Commissioner') dated January 31, 1986 awarding Rs. 21,600/ - as compensation, Rs. 2,160/ - as penalty and interest and Rs. 140/ - as costs, total Rs. 23,900/ -. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.
(2.) THE deceased Lal Singh was posted as Forest Guard in January, 1983 at Lifafa Forest Outpost. During the night intervening 24th and 25th January, 1983, he had a heart attack while he was on duty. Post -mortem examination on his dead body was performed and the cause of his death was found to be shock due to acute myocardial infarction. A claim petition was filed before the Commissioner by the respondents, No. 1 being widow of the deceased and Nos. 2 and 3 being sons of the deceased Lal Singh. The appellant filed its reply contesting the claim. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the Commissioner held that the deceased Lal Singh was on duty during the said night, due to overwork he was greatly exhausted and the death was the result of the over -exhaustion and awarded the amounts as said above. It is contended by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the Commissioner has seriously erred to hold that the heart attack was the result of over -exhaustion and the deceased Lal Singh died while on duty. She contended that he had heart attack while he was taking rest after doing his duty. She further contended that hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad laws and the State had every sympathy for the deceased and the respondents have already been paid their dues. She also contended that the deceased Lal Singh did not die as a result of an accident. She lastly contended that the learned Commissioner seriously erred in awarding penalty and interest.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents duly supported the order under appeal. In support of the cross -objection, he contended that the Commissioner should have awarded penalty at the rate of 50 per cent and interest as the appellant had the audacity to completely deny its liability.;