IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 397 of 2005 Date of decision :31.12.2008. Smt. Leelawati . …Appellant Versus State of H.P. and another. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This appeal by the injured workman is directed against the award of the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Chachyot, Distt. Mandi dated 3.5.2005, whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs.20,467/- as compensation and has further awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of deposit of the amount. This appeal was admitted on the following questions of law. 1. Whether the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act has totally misconstrued and misread the evidence while assessing the wages of the workman? 2. Whether the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act has erred in not awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum as provided under Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Act? As far as the first question is concerned, claimant has led no evidence to prove her wages. She has only stated that she was 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 earning about Rs.2300 – Rs.2400/- per month which was inclusive of the amount being earned by her from agriculture. Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act agricultural income is not to be taken into consideration. The learned Commissioner has assessed the income at Rs.55 per day on the basis of the notification Ext.PA produced by the claimant herself whereby the minimum wages for a Beldar has been fixed at Rs.55 per day w.e.f. 12.9.2001. The accident took place on 27th July, 2002. There is no material on record to show that these wages were revised. The calculations made by the Commissioner are strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and calls for no interference. Question No.2. Under Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, a duty is cast upon the Workmen Commissioner to award simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum lending rate of a scheduled bank. It is, thus, clear that minimum interest which can be awarded under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is 12%. The Commissioner, therefore, erred in awarding interest @ 6% per annum. The award of the learned Tribunal is, therefore, modified to this extent only and it is held that the respondent is liable to pay interest on the awarded amount @ 12% per annum. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and the award of the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, is modified to the limited extent that the interest on 3 the awarded amount shall be @12% per annum instead of 6% per annum. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. December 31, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. ™