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. 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