THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No.2226 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2003 in W.C.No.130 of 1997 on the file of the Commissioner for the Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, the present appeal is filed urging that the learned Commissioner failed to fix the monthly wage of the applicant as Rs.2,000/-, but fixed the wage only as Rs.800/-, which is erroneous and that the learned Commissioner did not award any interest on the amount of compensation awarded. Now the point for consideration is whether the applicant is entitled for any enhancement of compensation. A perusal of the evidence of the applicant and the documents filed by him, it is evident that the applicant was employed by Opposite party No.1 as Cleaner and that he suffered permanent partial disability in the accident arising during the course of his employment. According to the evidence of PW.2 Dr.K.Laxminarayana on 09.01.2001 he examined Shaik Nanne Sab and noticed 50% permanent partial disability of right leg and right forearm on account of painful movements like flexion and rotation. He also noticed 70% functional disability and 70% loss of earnings. Ex.A.4 is the disability certificate to that effect. The opposite party No.1 were remained ex parte in the lower Court. The counsel appearing for the appellant now placed reliance on Ex.A.5 the salary certificate alleged to have been issued by opposite party No.1 and urged that the compensation may be awarded by taking into consideration the monthly wage of the applicant as Rs.2,000/-. In my view, the aforesaid argument cannot be swallowed by any stretch of imagination in view of the ex parte of R.1 in the proceedings. R.1 all through kept quite without participating in the proceedings. The applicant claiming the relief of compensation on the ground that he is getting the income of Rs.2,000/- per month through his employment under Ex.A.5. The person, who issued Ex.A.5 was not examined on behalf of the applicant. However, it is the contention of the appellant/claimant that Ex.A.5 was issued by Opposite party No.1. As stated above, Opposite party No.1 has not participated in the proceedings and remained ex parte. Further non-examination of the concerned who issued Ex.A.5 is fatal. Therefore, there is no positive evidence on behalf of the applicant that he was getting Rs.2,000/- per month towards salary. However, the learned Commissioner fixed the monthly wage of the applicant at Rs.1,800/- which is just and reasonable. Hence, I see no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Commissioner while assessing the monthly wage of the applicant. However, in view of the decision reported in Kerala State Electricity Board and another v Valsala K. and another[1], granting of 12% interest from the date of accident is just and reasonable. Accordingly, interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of accident is hereby granted. With this modification, the appeal is partly allowed. K.S.APPA RAO,J 24th February, 2011 PNV [1] 1999 (6) ALT 6 (SC)