JUDGMENT : 1. For the reasons briefly indicated hereinafter, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bombay, on January 23, 1981 in Application No. 183/C-29 of 1976 is modified as under : "The Opposite Party is hereby ordered to pay to the applicant a sum of Rs. 4,282 together with interest on Rs. 5,032 at 5 per cent per annum from November 1, 1976 after deducting therefrom the amount already withdrawn by the applicant from deposit made in pursuance of order, dated January 23, 1981, being the order under appeal". 2. On November 17, 1975, the applicant met with an accident. At the time of accident, the appellant was employed with the Opposite Party. The applicant claimed compensation from the Opposite Party in the Court of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bombay. The case papers produced by A.W. 4 Shanbhag of the Cooper Hospital shows that the applicant had suffered permanent partial disability of 20 per cent. The St. Georges Hospital certified that the applicant had suffered permanent partial disability to the extent of 25 per cent. The trial Court had referred the controversy to one Dr. Pandit, a panel doctor. Dr. Pandit opined that the permanent partial disability of the applicant was 15 per cent. At the material time, the applicant was paid wages at the rate of 10.50 per day. The applicant was thus in the wage group of Rs. 300/400 at the material time. The Learned Commissioner held that in view of expert opinion of Dr. Pandit, he was of the opinion that the applicant had suffered 15 per cent permanent partial disability. The Learned Commissioner quantified the amount of compensation payable at Rs. 3,780. The opposite party has already deposited a sum of Rs. 756 in the Court of the Learned Commissioner for being paid to the applicant. The Additional Commissioner directed the opposite party to pay balance of Rs. 3024 together with interest on Rs. 3,780 at 5 per cent per annum from November 1, 1976 within one month from the date of the order. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had suffered 100 per cent disability and the Learned Additional Commissioner was in error in computing the amount of compensation on the footing that the applicant had suffered 15 per cent permanent partial disability. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had suffered 100 per cent disability and the Learned Additional Commissioner was in error in computing the amount of compensation on the footing that the applicant had suffered 15 per cent permanent partial disability. The learned Counsel for the appellant invites attention of the Court to the evidence of witness Bharat Natwarlal. I am not persuaded to examine the factual aspects and reappreciate the evidence on record having regard to the limited scope of appeal filed u/s 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 4. The learned Commissioner was within his jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and accept the opinion evidence of Dr. Pandit as more reliable than the testimony of other witnesses, I confirm the finding of the Learned Commissioner on this aspect of the case. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant then submitted that the applicant was admittedly paid wages at the rate of 10.50 per day at the relevant time. It is obvious that having regard to admitted facts of the case, the applicant would fall in the wage group of Rs. 300-400 and not within wage group of Rs. 200-300 as erroneously held by the learned Commissioner. The finding of the learned Commissioner to the effect that the applicant fell Is in the wage group of Rs. 200-300 is not supported by any evidence on record. The said finding must therefore be reversed. On this aspect of the appeal, I accept, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant to the effect that the amount of compensation should be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in Schedule IV on the footing that the applicant fails within the wage group of Rs. 300/400. I accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant when he submits that the correct amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the appellant works out to Rs. 5,032 instead of Rs. 3,780. A sum of Rs. 750 shall have to be deducted from the said sum of Rs. 5,032. 6. For the reasons discussed above, I have modified the order under appeal, as set out in the opening part of this judgment. 7. The Opposite Party is directed to deposit the differential amount in the Court of the Learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Bombay, on or before August 16, 1994. 5,032. 6. For the reasons discussed above, I have modified the order under appeal, as set out in the opening part of this judgment. 7. The Opposite Party is directed to deposit the differential amount in the Court of the Learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Bombay, on or before August 16, 1994. The said amount must be released to the applicant expeditiously thereafter. 8. The Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side is directed to return the record and proceeding of the case to the trial Court alongwith an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Shirastedar of this Court latest within one month from today.