Jasbir Singh, J.@mdashThis application has been moved for condonation of delay of 148 days in filing this appeal. Application is accompanied by
an affidavit. Despite many efforts made, service of the respondents is not complete. In view of averments made in the application, which is
supported by an affidavit, it is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
F.A. No. 299 of 2005:
2. Vide order under challenge, Commissioner under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.
2,80,350 along with interest to the widow and minor children, i.e., the respondents on account of death of Shri Ram Singh. It is apparent from the
records that the appellant along with other respondents has failed to lead any evidence to rebut the claim of the respondents. Age of the deceased
was only 39 years. He was getting salary of Rs. 3,000 per month. In view of this, compensation awarded is perfectly justified. Counsel for the
appellant has contended that the appellant has wrongly been burdened with liability to pay interest on the compensation awarded. However, he has
failed to show that there was any negative clause with regard to the payment of interest in the policy. In view of judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme
Court in Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi and others, and the judgment of this Court in F.A.O. No. 326 of 2006 United India Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Smt. Shakuntto Devi and Ors. rendered on January 20, 2006, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed.
