P.K. Lohra, J.

Appellant-employer has laid this appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'Act of 1923') to challenge judgment & order dated 20.09.2000, passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Chittorgarh (for short, 'Commissioner'). By the impugned judgment & order, learned Commissioner adjudicated claim of the respondent-claimants under Section 20 read with Section 22 of the Act of 1923 and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 53,492.

Likewise, partly aggrieved by the impugned judgment & order, respondent-claimants have filed cross-objections for claiming interest on compensation amount as mandated under Section 4A(3) of the Act of 1923.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent-claimants preferred a claim petition under Section 20 read with Section 22 of the Act of 1923 against the appellant quantifying compensation of Rs. 72,377. It is inter-alia averred in the claim petition by respondent-claimants that their father Ramgopal was in employment of appellant and on the fateful day of 24th July 1986 he died in an accident, arising out of and in the course of his employment while accomplishing the task of delivering official Dak, due to drowning in Gunjali river. It is stated in the claim petition that when he was crossing the river, its water level was shallow but on account of sudden excessive flow of water and its thrust he fell and swayed away, and the calamity eventually engulfed his life due to drowning at the age of 50 years. Asserting the factum of employment of their father with appellant, the respondent-claimants also pleaded in the claim petition that at the time of his death he was he was earning wages @ Rs. 870 per mensem. By applying relevant factor for working out lumpsum compensation amount, as per Schedule IV to the Act of 1923, the respondent-claimants quantified total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 72,377. Besides staking claim for lumpsum compensation, the respondent-claimants also craved for grant of interest on the compensation amount as well as penalty. The claim petition on behalf of respondent-claimants was presented belatedly, therefore, at their behest, endeavour was also made for seeking condonation of delay by invoking Section 10 of the Act of 1923 as well as section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

3. The appellant contested the claim petition and also joined issue with the respondent-claimants on belated filing of the claim petition. Although on behalf of respondent-claimants, respondent No. 1 has submitted his affidavit in support of application for condonation of delay but the appellant instead of filing a separate reply to the said application submitted a composite reply of the claim petition as well as application for condonation of delay. Without filing any counter affidavit, the appellant simply pleaded in the return that claim petition is presented after inordinate delay of 10 years, and therefore, it merits rejection.

4. The learned Commissioner, on the strength of the pleadings of rival parties, settled five issues for determination. In order to substantiate their claim, five witnesses were examined by respondent-claimants including respondent No. 1 Harish Kumar Sharma, besides tendering documentary evidence. Per contra, on behalf of appellant, one witness Jitendra Luhadia testified on oath to authenticate its defence. Upon conclusion of the evidence of rival parties, learned Commissioner partly allowed the claim petition of respondent-claimants and awarded lumpsum amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 53,492.

5. Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned Addl. Government Counsel, espousing cause of the appellant, has argued that the impugned judgment & order of learned Commissioner, Chittor is contrary to law and facts of the case. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Commissioner has erroneously awarded lumpsum amount of compensation to the respondent-claimants inasmuch as there wa