JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - This appeal has been filed by the claimant u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (in short, the 'Act'), claiming higher compensation, 2. The claimant filed claim application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (in short, the 'Commissioner'), Cuttack, alleging that he was working as a coolie in respect of a mini bus bearing registration No. OIU 2372 belonging to respondent No. 1. It was further alleged that on July 25, 1991 the said truck met with an accident as a result of which he had sustained injuries in the said accident arising out of and in course of his employment. 3. The owner while admitting about the employment, wage and accident, disputed about the age of the claimant and the nature of injuries. The owner took the further plea that the vehicle had been insured and the liability, if any, should be met by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company filed written statement denying the allegations. 4. The Commissioner found that the claimant was a workman under the owner and he was working as a coolie in the said truck and the injuries were sustained by the claimant in an accident arising out and in course of employment. Assessing the loss of earning capacity at 12% and calculating the age of the claimant to be 30 years, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 11,230.92 paise. It was also directed that the said amount should be paid by the Insurance Company. 5. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant against the aforesaid award. No independent appeal or cross-objection has been filed on behalf of the owner or the Insurance Company. In the absence of any independent appeal or cross-objection, the findings of the Commissioner to the effect that the claimant was a workman and had sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in course of employment are final and not available to be challenged in an appeal u/s 30 of the Act. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised three questions. It has been submitted that in view of the evidence of the doctor, the loss of earning capacity should have been considered to be more than twelve per cent. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised three questions. It has been submitted that in view of the evidence of the doctor, the loss of earning capacity should have been considered to be more than twelve per cent. It has been further submitted that in view of the unchallenged evidence of the claimant relating to his age, it was not open to the Commissioner to fix the age of the claimant to be 30 years merely on the basis of the age indicated in the police requisition. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Commissioner has committed illegality in not directing payment of interest on the awarded sum. In spite of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of owner- respondent No. 1. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has, however, vehemently contended that the findings of the Commissioner regarding the loss of earning capacity and the age of the claimant are based on evidence on record and should not be interfered with in an appeal u/s 30 of the Act. 7. The findings of the Commissioner regarding the loss of earning capacity appear to be on the basis of discussion of the relevant evidence on record. It cannot be said that the finding of the Commissioner on this score is perverse, so as to warrant interference in an appeal u/s 30 of the Act. The first contention of the counsel for the appellant, therefore, fails. 8. The finding of the Commissioner regarding the age of the claimant, however, appears to be vulnerable. The claimant in his deposition has categorically stated that his age was 22 years at the time of accident. The doctor who had examined the claimant on police requisition had also indicated the age of the claimant to be 22 years. Such evidence of the claimant has not been challenged in cross-examination. However, the Commissioner has fixed the age of the claimant at 30 years merely on the basis of entry made by the police in the police requisition for examining the injured by the doctor. Such entry made by the police in the police requisition, which was merely an assessment could not have been utilised as positive material on record, particularly when the evidence of the claimant relating to his own age had gone unchallenged and had received ample corroboration from the certificate issued by the doctor. Such entry made by the police in the police requisition, which was merely an assessment could not have been utilised as positive material on record, particularly when the evidence of the claimant relating to his own age had gone unchallenged and had received ample corroboration from the certificate issued by the doctor. Since the Commissioner has not given any reason as to why the age given by the claimant was unacceptable, the conclusion is not based on substantive evidence and the finding being perverse, cannot be accepted. Accordingly, differing from the Commissioner, I hold that the compensation should have been calculated on the basis that the claimant was below 23 years of age at the time of the accident. If the age is calculated to be 23 years, the relevant multiplier should be applied as 219.95. As such, the claimant is entitled to _450 x 219.95 x 12_ 100 which comes to Rs. 11,877.36. 9. The next question is whether the claimant in entitled to get any interest on the aforesaid amount. It is now well-settled that the claimant is entitled to get interest on the compensation amount. As such, it is directed that the amount of Rs. 11,877.36 paise shall be paid to the claimant with interest at the rate of six per cent from the date of claim application, that it is to say, from December 16, 1991. However, if the said amount is not deposited before the Commissioner on or before December 31, 1998, the awarded amount shall carry interest at the rate of twelve per cent thereafter. 10. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.