THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.4713 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The 1st respondent filed W.C.No.13 of 2001 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal-I (for short “the Commissioner”), claiming Rs.3,35,240/- as compensation. He pleaded that he was engaged as labour by the 2nd respondent to work on a Tractor bearing No.AP-36-T-5978 and Trailor bearing No.AP-36-5980 and that the vehicle was registered with the appellant. It is stated that on 24-02-1999 when the vehicle was in the process of transportation of gravel from Salapalli Quarry to N.T.P.C., the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and on account of the same, it turned turtle. The 1st respondent is said to have received serious injuries and he was initially treated at a private clinic and thereafter at NIMS and his left hand was amputated to the level of shoulder and, thereby, he became permanently disabled to undertake any work. The wages were said to be Rs.2,100/- per month and that he was aged about 20 years. The 2nd respondent filed a counter admitting that the 1st respondent was employed with him as a worker and however, according to him, the wages were Rs.2,000/- per month. It was alleged that the vehicle is insured with the appellant. The actual contest to the case was by the appellant. It disputed about the fact pleaded by the 1st respondent and he was put to strict proof of the same. It was pleaded that the 1st respondent was not employed as a worker by the 2nd respondent. Through order, dated 29-09-2003, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.2,41,920/- with interest at 9%. The same is challenged in this appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short “the Act”). Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Three contentions are urged. The first is that the 1st respondent was not employed with the 2nd respondent at all. Deposing as PW.1, the 1st respondent stated the facts pleaded by him in the case. He asserted that he was employed with the 2nd respondent with a salary of Rs.2,100/- per month. The best person to speak about the question as to whether the 1st respondent was employed at all was the 2nd respondent. He deposed as RW.1 and admitted that the 1st respondent is employed with him. Nothing contrary was elicited by the appellant herein either from PW.1 or from RW.1, therefore, the finding of the Commissioner in this regard does not warrant interference. The second contention is about quantum. Though the appellant pleaded that he was being paid Rs.2,100/- per month as wages, the Commissioner took the facts as pleaded by the 2nd respondent at Rs.2,000/- per month. The relevant formula was applied and compensation was awarded. The appellant is not able to point out the defect in the process. The third contention is about award of interest. The Act provides for grant of interest. It cannot be said that the Commissioner committed illegality in awarding interest. The Tribunal awarded interest @ 9% from the date of accident. However, according to the Act, the interest can be awarded after expiry of 30 days from the date stipulated for payment of compensation. To that extent, it needs to be modified. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed directing that interest @ 9 % shall become payable on expiry of thirty days from the date of the order passed by the Commissioner. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 05-12-2011 Prv