THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1692 of 2000 JUDGMENT: The appellant was employed as a Cleaner with the 1st respondent, to work upon a Van bearing No.AP-22/521, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. On 19-10-1995, when the appellant was on duty, the van dashed against a stationed lorry, on its way from Hyderabad to Jadcherla, at the outskirts of Macharam on N.H-7. Stating that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the Driver of the Van, and that he sustained injuries in the course of employment, the appellant filed W.C.No.82 of 1996 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-II, Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the Commissioner’). The Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.58,423/- as compensation. Not satisfied with that, the appellant has filed this appeal, under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’). Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent. The occurrence of the accident and the fact that the appellant sustained injuries, were not disputed at all. Apart from deposing as PW-1, the appellant has filed F.I.R., Medical Certificate, discharge tickets, and charge-sheet, as Exs.A-1 to A-7. So far as the extent of disability is concerned, the appellant examined PWs 2 and 3, the Doctors, and filed Ex.A-8, the disability certificate. It was to the effect that the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40%. The Commissioner took the age of the appellant as 20 years, without doubting his version. Though the appellant pleaded that he was earning Rs.2,000/- per month, he did not supply any material before the Commissioner. Naturally, the Commissioner adopted the salary, that is payable under the Minimum Wages Act, which, at the relevant point of time, for the post of Cleaner, was, Rs.1,079/-, including allowances. The disability pleaded by the appellant was taken as it is. Therefore, no fault can be found, with the figure arrived at by the Commissioner. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner ought to have awarded interest. The liability to pay interest under the Act would arise, if only the compensation is not deposited within the time, stipulated in the order. At this length of time, this Court cannot verify as to when the amount was deposited. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15-11-2011. KO