HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A.No.1403 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the award in W.C.No.81 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour-1 at Hyderabad, questioning the quantum of compensation. 2. A claim for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- was filed for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident. 3. According to the case of the petitioner, he is said to be cleaner on the lorry bearing No.ADT 5418, which met with an accident on 04.06.2004 and he received multiple injuries and suffered disability. He was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The vehicle was insured with the appellant herein and therefore, the claimant is entitled for the compensation. After considering the material on record, the Commissioner has accepted the manner of incident and however took the loss of earning capacity as 100% and granted the compensation. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed. 4. The point for consideration is whether the Commissioner has power to grant interest on the compensation awarded? 5. POINT: The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the injuries said to have been received by the petitioner are schedule injuries, which are an amputation of the left upper limb and also the amputation of the left hand up to the shoulder. The physical disability was assessed at 90%. According to the counsel for the appellant when once the schedule injury prescribes the percentage of loss of earning, it is not permissible for the Commissioner to have assessed total loss of earnings. But, however, in this connection, it will be useful to refer to the decision reported in Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs Srinivas Sabata and another[1], which has been later followed in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar[2]. 6. In view of the above circumstances, the opinion arrived at by the Commissioner about the loss of earning capacity cannot be faulted. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Commissioner has granted interest with default clause. According to her, the amount was deposited with some delay and there is no liability to pay the interest. But, however, under Section 4(A) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Commissioner has got every power to grant interest in case of default even if the power to grant interest in the original application is doubted. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the award of the Commissioner. In this connection, it is useful to refer to the decision reported in Shaik Murthuza and another Vs. Nadella Kutumba Rao and another[3]. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the above decision referred above, there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:28.12.2011 INL [1] 1976 ACJ 141 (SC) [2] 2011 ACJ 1 [3] 2011(4) ALD 561