S. Vaidyanathan, J.

1. These appeals arise out of the order made in W.C. No. 80 of 2011 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour II, Chennai, dated 31.08.2012 in his capacity as the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, in and by which, an award for a sum of Rs. 8,66,120/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of expiry of 30 days from the date of occurrence till the date of payment, has been ordered.

2. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the United India Insurance Company Ltd. as appellant has come forward with CMA No. 1582 of 2012, whereas, being not satisfied with the quantum of said compensation, the claimants, as appellants have come forward with CMA No. 2121 of 2014, seeking for enhancement together with interest from the date of accident.

3. The deceased V. Krishnamurthy, was working as a Driver for a Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No. TN-2-BU-9321 belonged to one G. Kandasamy. On 12.12.2010, he loaded container in the trailer lorry at Ponneri and proceeded to Madras along with Cleaner Subburaj and when they reached at Madarasan Company, Vandalur, the lorry came to contact with an electric live wire, due to which, the driver Krishnamurthy died of electrocution. The legal representatives of the deceased, who are the parents of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 10(1) & 4-A of the Workmen Compensation Act, before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation II, Chennai Labour Court, claiming compensation at Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident.

4. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, while taking into account the earning of the deceased at 8000/- per month, the Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,66,120/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of expiry of 30 days from the date of occurrence till the date of payment.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondents. Perused the entire materials available on record.

6. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that though initially, this Court granted interim stay on 5.6.2013 while entertaining the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. However, subsequently, by a detailed order, dated 26.9.2013, relevant portion of which extracted hereunder, this Court vacated the interim stay.

"2. Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 provides that no appeal by an employer shall lie to High Court unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate issued by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. In this case, the appellant seems to have produced a copy of the letter enclosing a cheque dated 26.12.2012 for a sum of Rs. 8,66,120/- addressed to the Commissioner containing an endorsement to the effect that such a cheque was received on 04.01.2013. The same has been produced in purported fulfillment of the condition provided in the above said proviso. An acknowledgment that a cheque was received for a particular amount cannot be equated with a certificate issued by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that the amount awarded as compensation has been deposited. In this case, the learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly pointed out the fact that even otherwise what was deposited by the appellant in the CMA was only the principal component awarded by the Commissioner and interest component has not been deposited. It is also pertinent to note that unless the cheque is encashed, the appellant cannot contend that the amount awarded as compensation as per the order has been deposited. The acknowledgment for the receipt of the cheque will not be a substitute for the certificate that the amount has been deposited.

3. In view of the same, this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners in the present mis