JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The Insurer has filed this appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") challenging the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and Addl. District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, Baripada (hereinafter referred to as the "Commissioner") in W.C. Case No. 19 of 1994. 2. The claimants are the legal representatives of deceased Manmohan Ray who was alleged to be working as a driver under present respondent No. 7 in respect of Truck bearing number OSU 5529. It was stated that the said driver sustained severe bodily injuries on May 25, 1994 on account of an accident arising out of and in course of employment. The injuries resulted in death soon after the accident. 3. The owner of the truck filed written statement admitting the fact of accident and employment of the deceased as driver, but stated that the deceased was not getting Rs. 1500/- but was getting Rs. 1200/- per month towards salary. It was further pleaded that the liability, if any, should be borne by the Insurance Company. The Insurer in its written statement generally denied the allegations made in the claim application and called upon the claimants/owner to prove the relevant facts. 4. The Commissioner found that the deceased was a driver in respect of the truck and he sustained injuries and subsequently died in the accident which arose out of and in course of employment. Keeping in view the income factor as available under the Workmen's Compensation Act on the date of accident and keeping in view the age of the deceased, the Commissioner directed for payment of Rs. 78,824/- as compensation and further directed that the said amount should be disbursed by the Insurance Company. 5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company appellant has contended that there was discrepancy in the name of the deceased and as such, there was doubt as to whether the claim application was by the genuine claimants. In this connection, it was also contended that the widow of the deceased who had been examined as P.W. 1 had not signed her deposition and as such, any finding on the basis of such unsigned deposition cannot be sustained. It is contended that in the post mortem report, the age of the deceased was given as 42 years whereas the Commissioner has assessed the age to be 35 years. 6. It is contended that in the post mortem report, the age of the deceased was given as 42 years whereas the Commissioner has assessed the age to be 35 years. 6. In the claim application, the deceased was described to be Manmohan Ray. In the driving licence also he was similarly described. In the post mortem report too, he was described as Manmohan Ray. However, it is contended that in the School Leaving Certificate produced on behalf of the claimants to prove the age of the deceased, he has been described as Manmohan Ram. I have gone through the School Leaving Certificate available on record which is in Hindi and find that it cannot be said that the deceased has been described as Manmohan Ram. Rather it appears that he has been described as Manmohan Ray. Moreover, the conclusion of the Commissioner on this aspect is a finding of fact not available to be raised in the present appeal. The contention is thus untenable. 7. It is next contended that the evidence of the claimant should not have been accepted as such evidence has not been signed by her. In the sheet of deposition, the Presiding Officer has recorded that the deponent had refused to sign the deposition. In the judgment, he has recorded as follows: "..... Though her depositions have been recorded but due to mental imbalance, she did not put her signature on the body of the deposition sheets and for that reason Court has given a Certificate on the deposition sheets that, the deponent refused to sign." Signatures of a witness is taken on the deposition sheet with a view to avoid any controversy relating to the truth of the deposition recorded. Even if no such signature is there on the deposition sheet, if it is otherwise borne on record that the deposition has been given by a particular witness, the same can be acted upon. In the present case, the deposition sheet itself clearly indicates that the statements had been given by the witness and had been explained to her. Such certificate given by the Presiding Officer himself is to be accepted. In the present case, the deposition sheet itself clearly indicates that the statements had been given by the witness and had been explained to her. Such certificate given by the Presiding Officer himself is to be accepted. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that there was no statement of any witness at all and a statement had been fictitiously recorded by the Presiding Officer, nor there is any allegation by anybody that the statement recorded did not reflect the correct deposition. Except Order 18, Rule 16(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no other provision contained in the Code requiring the signature of a witness as a pre-condition to accept the deposition as a part of record. When the deposition itself is not in dispute, the absence of signature is immaterial. In this connection, the decision reported in Owners and Parties interested in M.V. "ValiPero" Vs. Fernandeo Lopez and Others, is significant. Moreover, the Presiding Officer himself has recorded a reasoning in the judgment explaining the absence of signature on the deposition. In view of the certificate given in the deposition itself and the subsequent reasoning given in the judgment, I do not see any illegality in relying upon the evidence of the claimant who was examined as P.W.1. The aforesaid contention, therefore, is of no avail to the appellant. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the age of the deceased should have been taken to be 42 years and not 35 as has been done by the Commissioner. It is no doubt true that in the post mortem report, the age of the deceased has been indicated to be 42, but the basis of such conclusion is not indicated in the post mortem report, nor the doctor has been examined to explain the basis. It is not the case of the Insurer that the age had been assessed after making some scientific tests such as ossification test. As against such statement, the Commissioner has relied upon the statement of the widow of the deceased as well as the other witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants. Though the age of the deceased as per the School Leaving Certificate appears to be 32, the Commissioner has assessed the age at 35 taking in view the statements of the witnesses as well as the statement made in the claim application. Though the age of the deceased as per the School Leaving Certificate appears to be 32, the Commissioner has assessed the age at 35 taking in view the statements of the witnesses as well as the statement made in the claim application. This again is essentially a question of fact. Thus, I do not find any scope to interfere with the award on this aspect. All the contentions of the appellant having been repelled, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents submitted that though no Cross-Objection has been filed, higher compensation should be paid on the basis of the amended provision. He has further submitted that, at any rate, the Commissioner should have directed for payment of interest. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi and others, 10. The claimant-respondents have invoked the underlying principle available in Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C. However, in the absence of any Cross-Objection by the claimants, it would not be possible to invoke the provision of Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C. while dismissing the appeal of the appellant. Moreover, the contention to the effect that the amended provision should form the basis of the calculation cannot be accepted. The compensation has to be assessed keeping in view the Schedule prescribed on the date of the accident. With respect, I am unable to agree with the views expressed in the decision reported in Travancore Devaswom Board Vs. Purushothoman. At least, so far as this Court is concerned, the law appears to be well settled that the quantum of compensation should be fixed keeping in view the Schedule available on the date of the accident and not on the date of decision as the amendment is not retrospective. 11. The learned counsel for the claimants also submitted that the amount should be directed to be paid with interest. Such a submission has been resisted by the appellant as well as by the counsel for respondent No. 7. As already indicated, no cross- objection has been filed. Moreover, the Insurance Company has deposited the amount in this Court which has been kept in fixed deposit. Since the said amount would be paid to the claimants with accrued interest, I do not consider it a fit case to direct payment for any anterior period. As already indicated, no cross- objection has been filed. Moreover, the Insurance Company has deposited the amount in this Court which has been kept in fixed deposit. Since the said amount would be paid to the claimants with accrued interest, I do not consider it a fit case to direct payment for any anterior period. The fixed deposit shall be renewed till end of September, 1999 and shall be paid to the claimants thereafter along with the accrued interest. 12. The Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed