THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No.1575 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 09.08.2001 in W.C.No.84 of 1998 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation and Asst.Commissioner for Labour, Nizamabad, the present appeal is preferred urging that order of the learned Commissioner is against law. The learned Commissioner grossly erred in calculating the income of the worker as Rs.1,800/- per month instead of Rs.2,000/- and that the learned Commissioner also failed to award the interest at 12%. Now the point for consideration is whether the award of the learned Commissioner is sustainable? As seen from the impugned order, the applicant is examined as PW.1 and he also examined Dr.L.Ramulu as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. Ex.B.1 is the insurance policy filed by the opposite party No.2. In the written statement, the opposite party admitted the employment of the applicant on his goods vehicle bearing No.AP-36- U-963 on the date of accident and also the injuries sustained during the course of employment. However, the first party No.1 denied the salary of Rs.3,000/- per month but stated that he used to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as salary and batta Rs.50/- per day. It is also stated that vehicle was insured with opposite party No.2. While evaluating the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner fixed the salary of the applicant as Rs.800/- per month. As stated already, the learned counsel for the appellant strongly urged that the Tribunal failed to consider the pleading of opposite party No.1 that he was paying Rs.2,000/- per month as salary to the applicant. It is an admitted fact that opposite party No.1 was paying Rs.2,000/- per month as salary and Rs.50/- per day as batta on working days to the injured. It is also an admitted fact that injured is a workman working with R.1. In view of the evidence of PW.1, the wages earned by the worker can be safely taken as Rs.2,000/- per month. The learned Commissioner also correctly assessed the disability at 65% basing on the evidence of PW.2, who treated the injured. The opposite party No.2 through Ex.B.1 confirmed that vehicle is in the name of opposite party No.1 and it is having valid insurance coverage on the date of accident. Therefore, while calculating the wages earned by the worker at Rs.2,000/- per month, it comes to Rs.2,000 X 213.57 X 65/100 = 2,77,641/-. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the appellant draw the attention of the Court that the decisions reported in Kerala State Electricity Board and another v Valsala K. and another[1] and Pratap Narain Singh Deo v Shrinivas Sabata and another[2] urged that as per Section 4(2) “liability of employer arises as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman”. Therefore, employer is liable to pay interest. As seen from the observations of the Bench of the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, the compensation has to be paid at the rate provided by Section 4 as soon as personal injury was caused to the injured. In view of the observations in the aforesaid two judgments, the granting of interest on the awarded compensation is mandatory. Accordingly, it is ordered to pay interest @ 12%, on the amount of compensation granted from the date of accident. As per the decision reported in Kerala State Electricity Board (1 supra), the relevant date for determination of compensation is date of accident and not date of adjudication of claim. As the accident in question is subsequent to the acknowledgment, I deem it appropriate to order to pay interest @ 12% per annum. Accordingly, interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of accident is hereby granted. With this modification, the appeal is allowed. __________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J 24th February, 2011 PNV [1] 1999 (6) ALT 6 (SC) [2] AIR 1976 SC 222(1)