Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral)This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the order dated 27.6.2005 of Commissioner, under Workmen’s Compensation Act, by which a sum of Rs.4,33,820/- has been awarded by way of compensation, another sum of Rs.73,749/- has been awarded by way of interest and an amount equivalent to 50% of the compensation money has been ordered to be paid by way of penalty, in case compensation money and the amount of interest are not paid within a month of the passing of the impugned order.

2. Deceased Lalit Kumar was the son of respondent Gurdas Ram. He was employed as a driver on a truck of respondent Tika Ram. That truck met with an accident on 26.12.2003, when it was being driven by deceased Lalit Kumar. As a result of that accident, Lalit Kumar sustained fatal injuries. A petition, under Section 4 of Workmen’s Compensation Act was filed by a sister of Lalit Kumar for award of compensation. Said sister of Lalit Kumar got married during the pendency of petition and after her marriage, Gurdas Ram respondent, father of Lalit Kumar, applied, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, for being impleaded as petitioner. That application was allowed. After recording the evidence adduced by parties, Commissioner, under Workmen’s compensation Act, passed the impugned order.

3.Appellant, with whom the vehicle was insured, challenges the order on two grounds, namely Gurdas Ram, the father of Lalit Kumar, is not proved to have been

dependent upon the deceased and, therefore, he was not entitled to any compensation and the order of penalty passed by the Commissioner is illegal.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

5. Gurdas Ram, respondent-claimant himself did not enter the witness box before the Commissioner, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. One of his sons, namely Dinesh Kumar, whom he appointed as his attorney, appeared as PW-1. He testified that Gurdas Ram was unable to move, on account of old age and that he had executed a Power of Attorney, Ext. PW1/A, to pursue the claim petition. He stated that Gurdas Ram was dependent upon deceased Lalit Kumar for his livelihood. Suggestion put to him, on behalf of the appellant in the cross-examination that the deceased never paid any money to Gurdas Ram, claimant, was denied. No evidence in rebuttal was adduced by the appellant.

6. In view of the testimony of PW-1 Dinesh Kumar that Gurdas Ram was confined to bed, on account of old age and that he was dependent on deceased Lalit Kumar for his livelihood, no fault can be found with the order of compensation in favour of Gurdas Ram, especially when appellant led no evidence to controvert the testimony of PW-1 Dinesh Kumar.

7. As regards the second ground, order of penalty has not been passed, under Section 4A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, but on account of default in complying with the direction for payment of compensation money and the interest within the period, stipulated in the order. Such an order could not have been lawfully passed by the Commissioner, under Workmen’s Compensation Act.

8. In view of the above stated position, appeal is partly accepted and the order, to the extent it imposes penalty, on account of default in payment of compensation money within the period stipulated in the order, is set aside. Order regarding payment of compensation money and interest is, however, upheld. Appeal stands disposed of.