P.P. Naolekar, C.J.
1. The claimant respondent No. 1 Md. Rahij AH was an employee as a labourer in the vehicle of respondent No. 2. At about 8 AM on 24.5.1999 the truck met with an accident and as a result thereof the workman suffered injuries. The workman Md. Rahij Ali filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Nagaon claiming compensation for permanent loss of earning capacity. The Commissioner after recording evidence came to the conclusion that at the time of accident the claimant's age was 35 years and he was drawing salary of Rs. 3000 per month. So far the loss of earning capacity the Commissioner reached the conclusion that his earning capacity has been reduced to more than 70% and accordingly the compensation was calculated applying the amended provision of Section 4 as amended by Act 46 of 2000 which came into force with effect from 8.12.2000. The calculation was made by the Commissioner as under :
70% x Rs. 1800 x 190.06 = Rs. 2,48,295.60
This amount has been granted as compensation to the claimant with simple interest at the rate of @12% per annum.
2. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Nagaon the present appeal is filed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the accident took place on 24.5.1999 the compensation could have been awarded as provided under Section 4 under the amended Act 30 of 1995 and as such the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has committed an error in applying Section 4 as it stands under the amended Act 46 of 2000.
3. In Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 289, it is held by the Apex Court that an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman by the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. Thus, the relevant date for determination of the rate of compensation is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim. The aforesaid view of the Apex Court has been followed in a later judgement in Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Valsala K. and Anr., reported in (1999) 8 SCC 254. It is apparent from the aforesaid Judgement that the claimant was entitled for compensation as per the provisions of law applicable on 24.5.1999 and not on the date the judgement was delivered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. If we apply the provision of amending Act 30 of 1995 the compensation to which the claimant is entitled would be 60% of the amount of monthly income of Rs. 2000, under Explanation II to Section 4(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, whereunder if the monthly wages of a workman exceeds Rs. 2000 his wages for purpose of Clause (a) and Clause (b) of Section 4 of the Act shall be. deemed to be Rs. 2000 only, i.e., Rs. 1200. 70% of Rs. 1200, i.e., Rs. 840 x 197.06 being the other factors provided under Schedule-4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the claimant's age being 35 years at the time of the accident, would come to an amount of Rs. 1,64,000 in round figure. The claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,64,000 and not an amount of Rs. 2,48,295,60 as awarded to him by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.
4. The judgement and order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is modified to the extent of an award of compensation for Rs. 1,64,000 with 12% interest.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the amount awarded by the Commissioner has already been deposited for payment to the claimant. After adjustment of the amount decreed by us, the balance amount shall be refunded to the appellant.
6. The appeal stands disposed of.