ORDER Naik, J. This is an appeal by an employer under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act') on a short point that it raises, viz,. whether the respondent workman Chainoo was entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment under section 4-A of the Act. 2. Facts necessary for our purpose may shortly be stated as follows: The respondent Chainoo was a workman, whose monthly wages were estimated at Rs. 95.07 p., working in the Burhar and Amlai collieries owned by the appellant Messrs Rewa Coalfields Ltd. On 16th May 1962, injuries were caused to the respondent workman by accident arising out and in the course of his employment while he was working in the aforesaid collieries. There was an injury to the dorso lumbar vertebrae. Between the period 4-6-1962 to 16-11-1962 the respondent workman was paid about Rs.299.99 p. as compensation in half-monthly Installments. Thereafter, there were negotiations for a settlement where under on 19-1-1963 the appellant employer paid Rs. 750.01 p. in full settlement of all and every claim of the respondent workman under the Act in respect of the accident in question. On 8-1-1963 the appe1\ant employer sent a memorandum of the agreement to the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation (Appointed under Section 20 of the Act), Jabalpur, for registration of the agreement under section 28 of the Act. The Commis5ioner by an order dated 6-7-1965 held that the sum settled by the agreement was inadequate and that consequently the agreement could not be registered. He further held that the workman respondent Chainoo was entitled to Rs. 4,200/- as compensation and deducting therefrom Rs. 1,050/-, which the workman-respondent had already received, he was further entitled to Rs. 3,150/- with interest at 6% from the date of accident to the date of payment. 3. It may here be stated that the workman Chainoo had not given any notice of his claim under section 10 of the Act but had resisted the prayer of the employer for registration of the agreement on the ground that the sum settled by compromise was inadequate. 4. In this appeal the award of compensation is not resisted. 3. It may here be stated that the workman Chainoo had not given any notice of his claim under section 10 of the Act but had resisted the prayer of the employer for registration of the agreement on the ground that the sum settled by compromise was inadequate. 4. In this appeal the award of compensation is not resisted. The only question that has been canvassed before me is that under the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner was in error in awarding interest to the workman under section 4-A of the Act 5. Under section 4-A of the Act,- "(1) Compensation under section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim. (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner may direct that, in addition to the amount of the arrears, simple interest at the rate of six percent per annum on the amount due together with, if in the opinion of the Commissioner there is no justification for the delay, a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount, shall be recovered from the Employer by way of penalty. 6. The expression 'falls due' has not been defined in the Act. According to the learned counsel for the appellant employer, it falls due on the date on which it is determined by a Competent Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent workman says that compensation under section 4 of the Act falls due on the date on which the accident occurs. 7. It would be observed that the Legislature had advisedly not said that compensation under section 4 of the Act shall be paid as soon as an accident occurs, nor had it said that it shall be paid as soon as it is determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. 7. It would be observed that the Legislature had advisedly not said that compensation under section 4 of the Act shall be paid as soon as an accident occurs, nor had it said that it shall be paid as soon as it is determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. On the other hand, it had used a phraseology which is quite flexible so that it shall be for the Court to determine in each case when compensation under section 4 of the Act falls due. Section 4-A of the Act was for the first time introduced by the Amending Act of 1959, and the objects and reasons of the amendment stated that the provision was being made in order to ensure that the workman was able to get whatever amount the employer was prepared to pay immediately pending a decision as to the amount of com pension actually due. 8. Sub-section (I) of section 3 of the Act says that 'if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter'. The sub-section thus merely creates a liability without specifying when the compensation becomes due. Sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act provides for compensation for certain occupational diseases suffered by a workman in the course of his employment. Section 4 relates to the amount of compensation, and it prescribes various amounts for different kinds of injuries. Where the injury results in death, compensation is determined as per the second column of Schedule IV according to the monthly wages of the workman injured. Section 4 relates to the amount of compensation, and it prescribes various amounts for different kinds of injuries. Where the injury results in death, compensation is determined as per the second column of Schedule IV according to the monthly wages of the workman injured. Where the injury results in permanent partial disablement compensation is determined as per the third column of Schedule 4 according to the monthly wages of the workman injured Where the injuryre suits in permanent partial disablement, compensation is determined, in the case of an injury specified in Part 11 of Schedule I, at such percentage of the compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury, and, in the case of an injury not specified in Schedule I, at such percentage of the compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity permanently caused by injury. Section 4-A enacts that compensation shall be paid 'as soon as it falls due' and provides penalty for default. Section 5 deals with methods of calculating damages. Sections 8 and 9 deal with the distribution of compensation and that it cannot be assigned, attached or charged, respectively. Section 10 provides for notice of claim by the claimant. Section II deals with the medical examination of the workman who has given notice of an accident. The Act nowhere specifically says when compensation falls due for payment to the injured workman or to his dependants in case of his death, because in arriving at a sum payable as compensation to a workman, the employer has to take note of various factors, such as, whether the person injured is a workman, whether the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment, and whether the personal injury suffered by the workman has resulted in his death, or in permanent total disablement, or in permanent partial disablement, and in the case of the last the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by the injury. Then again, the employer may have no notice of, the claim till the workman gives him notice under section 10, he is medically examined, and the doctor has given his opinion on the extent of the injury suffered by him. Then again, the employer may have no notice of, the claim till the workman gives him notice under section 10, he is medically examined, and the doctor has given his opinion on the extent of the injury suffered by him. There may be cases where the disablement may become apparent only sometime after the accident or where death may be caused some days, weeks or months after the accident. It cannot, therefore, be said that compensation 'falls due' immediately after the accident occurs, Nor can it be postponed till after the determination of compensation by the Commissioner. Because, in conceivable cases, where there is no dispute as to the claimant being a workman and of the fact that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment, the employer shall be in a position to provisionally assess the amount of compensation payable to the workman as soon as the medical opinion has disclosed the extent of the workman's disablement, Thus, though it may not be possible to assess the exact damages immediately on the date on which the accident occurs its consideration cannot be necessarily postponed to the date when the Commissioner determines it. It will be a fact to be decided on the evidence adduced in each case. In my opinion, the expression 'falls due' occuring in section 4-A of the Act cannot be given any rigid meaning and shall have to be understood in accordance with the facts disclosed in each case. 9. Now, adverting once again to the language used in section 4-A of the Act, we find that though sub-section (1) of the section generally directs payment of compensation 'as soon as it falls due', sub-section (2) provides for cases where the employer does not accept liability to the extent claimed. In such cases, the employer has to make a provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts. Such a provisional payment, when permissible, would absolve him from the penal consequences of sub-section (3) of the section. 10. In the instant case, we know that the accident occurred on 16-5-1962 and that thereafter the workman was hospitalized. During the period of his hospitalization, he was paid half monthly wages as compensation amounts from time to time. Such a provisional payment, when permissible, would absolve him from the penal consequences of sub-section (3) of the section. 10. In the instant case, we know that the accident occurred on 16-5-1962 and that thereafter the workman was hospitalized. During the period of his hospitalization, he was paid half monthly wages as compensation amounts from time to time. We also know that it had never been disputed that the respondent was a workman, nor that he had been injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. But, even so, it was not clear on the date the accident occurred what the extent of his injury was, nor what the loss in his earning capacity was; and until and unless these were known with some precision, it was not possible to reasonably assess even the provisional amount of compensation payable to the workman. 11. It is, however, pointed out that we have on record a report of the medical examination of the injured workman dated 1-11-1962. The report is by the Chief Medical Officer of the appellant Company and it says that, in the opinion of the doctor, the injured workman was unfit for duty and that the extent of his permanent partial disablement was 25%. It is, therefore, contended that on the basis of the aforesaid report, the employer was from the stage the report was received aware of the probable extent of the disablement suffered by the workman and could, on that basis, calculate the provisional compensation payable to the workman under section 4-A (2) of the Act. 12. The appel1ant employer has not explained how and why, under the circumstances of the case, it did not make the provisional payment within a month of 1-11-1962 as required by section 4-A (2) of the Act. It is contended that immediately thereafter the parties entered into negotiations for the settlement of the dispute and the amount of Rs. 1,050 calculated on the basis of 25% loss in the earning capacity of the workman due to the permanent partial disablement was paid to him on the day the matter was settled. This however, is no answer to the provisions of section 4-A (2) of the Act, which required a provisional payment pending even the settlement. 13. 1,050 calculated on the basis of 25% loss in the earning capacity of the workman due to the permanent partial disablement was paid to him on the day the matter was settled. This however, is no answer to the provisions of section 4-A (2) of the Act, which required a provisional payment pending even the settlement. 13. The interest was, therefore, rightly allowed on the balance of the amount claimed under section 4-A (3) of the Act at 6% per annum. 14. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.