F.A.O. No. 5059 of 2005 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 5059 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 22, 2008 Harun ... Appellant Versus Ashu and another. .. Respondents CORAM : Hon`ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal. Present : Shri Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. PRITAM PAL , J. This appeal for enhancement by workman (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”), who was employed as a labourer with respondent No.1 for loading and unloading goods on his truck No. HR- 38/C-6751, is directed against order dated 20.7.2005 passed by learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) . On 18.4.2003, the appellant sustained injuries during the course of his employment with respondent No.1 as a result of which, he suffered 10% of disability. Learned Commissioner by applying the formula F.A.O. No. 5059 of 2005 2 .. given under the Act, granted a total compensation of Rs. 1,27,101/- payable to the appellant together with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of accident till the decision of the case. Now, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Commissioner has not assessed the disability in right perspective as the appellant has become disabled to carry-out his duties as Loader and that interest, which is payable by the Insurance Company, has also not been granted in terms of Section 4-A(3) of the Act. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on Samala Gangadhar v. Gangaram & anr. 1(2005) ACC 166 and G.V.Venkatesh Babu & Anr. v. Krishna Kumar III (2002) ACC 256. I have gone through the aforesaid rulings and also the facts of the case, as contained in the impugned order, passed by the Commissioner. In fact, in the instant case, the workman has not adduced any convincing and cogent evidence with regard to his monthly wages and also about his age. At the same time, the disability of 10% as assessed by the doctor, has also been increased to 30% by the learned Commissioner, keeping in view the earning capacity of the workman. Here, in the instant case, the workman is not entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% as prescribed under Section 4-A(3) of the Act, inasmuch as, no fault is shown to have been committed by the employer. The interest payable under this aforesaid section, is from the 'employer` and not from the 'insurer`. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, no interference is called for in the findings arrived at by the learned F.A.O. No. 5059 of 2005 3 .. Commissioner on all the crucial issues. Moreso, in the present case, learned counsel for the appellant could not make out any substantial question of law for the admission of the present appeal, as required under Section 30 of the Act. Hence, this appeal is dismissed at motion stage. [ PRITAM PAL ] April 22, 2008. JUDGE som