JUDGMENT B.A. Khan and Shambhoo Singh, JJ. 1. This appeal is directed by the L.Rs. of the deceased under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated March 8, 1996 passed by Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation Indore in case No, 14/83. 2. The facts leading to this appeal, in short are that the deceased Nathu Singh was employed as driver by respondent No. 1 on his tanker No. C.P. F. 8306 insured with respondent No. 2. His monthly salary was Rs. 1000/- with allowance of Rs. 300/- per month. On March 5, 1981 the deceased was going to Baroda driving this tanker. In the way near Sultanpur, it turned turtle and the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The L.Rs. of the deceased, his, widow and sons, filed claim application on September 4, 1981 before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Indore, for award of compensation of Rs. 2,22,000/-. The respondent No. 2 resisted the claim and inter alia pleaded that the deceased had no valid driving licence at the time of accident. The learned Commissioner on appreciation of evidence held that the appellants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 1000/- salary and Rs. 300/- allowance per month, therefore, he was not covered under the definition of "workman" under Section 2(n) and dismissed the application. Hence, this appeal. 3. Shri Punegar, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the learned Commissioner committed error in holding that the appellant was not workman as his monthly earning was more than Rs. 1000/-. He contended that the respondent/Insurance Co. did plead that the appellant was not workman. Even otherwise, the Commissioner held in issues Nos. 3 and 4 that the salary, of the deceased was Rs. 1000/- per month, therefore, it could not be held that he was not workman on the ground that his monthly salary and allowance were pleaded to be Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 300/- respectively. He also submitted that amendment made in Section 4 of the Act by amending Act of 30 of 1995, has abolished the limitation regarding the wages for determining the status of workman. 1000/- and Rs. 300/- respectively. He also submitted that amendment made in Section 4 of the Act by amending Act of 30 of 1995, has abolished the limitation regarding the wages for determining the status of workman. On the other hand, Shri Dandwate, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, submitted that the amending Act was not applicable to the case in hand as the accident took place in the year 1981 and the amending Act has no retrospective effect. He submitted that the application of the L.Rs. itself shows that the monthly wages of the deceased was Rs. 1300/- more than Rs. 1000/-. Therefore, he was not workman. 4. We considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides. 5. For deciding the controversy whether the deceased Nathu Singh was "workman" under the Act, Section 2(n) wherein definition of "workman" has been given quoted below:- Section 2: xx xx xx xx xx (n) "workman" means any person (other than a person whose employment is of casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of employer's trade or business) who is:- (a) a railway servant as defined in Section 34 of Section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), not permanently employed in any administrative district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, or (b) employed (***) on monthly wages not exceeding one thousand rupees in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II. Whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or writing, but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the armed forces of the Union (***) and any reference to a workman who has been injured shall, whether the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependents or any of them ..................". Section 2(n) was amended from time to time. In Section 2(n)(ii) 'one thousand rupees' was substituted in place of 'five hundred rupees' by amending Act of 65/1976 with effect from October 1, 1976. "On monthly wages not exceeding one thousand rupees" were omitted by Act 21 of 1984 which came into effect on July 1, 1984. 6. Shri Punegar referred to Section 4 of the Act which makes provisions for calculating compensation. "On monthly wages not exceeding one thousand rupees" were omitted by Act 21 of 1984 which came into effect on July 1, 1984. 6. Shri Punegar referred to Section 4 of the Act which makes provisions for calculating compensation. This section has been amended by Act 30 of 1995 which came into effect on September 15, 1995. Amended Section 4 reads as under :- 4. Amount of compensation - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely: - (a) Where death results from the injury an amount equal to forty per cent of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of twenty thousand: rupees, whichever is more. (b) Where permanent total disablement results from the injury an amount equal to fifty per cent of the monthly wages of the injured workman multiplied by the relevant factor: or an amount of twenty-four thousand rupees, whichever is more. Explanation II - Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed one thousand rupees, his monthly wages for the purpose of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be one thousand rupees only. On the basis of this Explanation II, Shri Punegar learned counsel for the Appellants, submitted that inspite of the fact the learned Commissioner held that the appellants proved that the monthly wages of the deceased were 1300.00 rupees (1000 pay plus 300 allowance), it will be deemed that the monthly wages of the deceased were Rs. 1000/-, therefore, the deceased was a workman. The argument of Shri Punegar that the amendment made in Section 2(n) and in Section 4 of the Act are retrospective and, therefore, the deceased was "workman" is not acceptable. 1000/-, therefore, the deceased was a workman. The argument of Shri Punegar that the amendment made in Section 2(n) and in Section 4 of the Act are retrospective and, therefore, the deceased was "workman" is not acceptable. It is true that a Division Bench of this Court held that the law as stood on the date, on which award was made, would be applicable and not the law, which was in force on the date of accident but their Lordships of the Supreme Court in case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K. considered the question whether the amendment of Sections 4 and 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, made by Act No. 30 of 1995 with effect from September 15, 1995, enhancing the amount of compensation and rate of interest, would be attracted to cases where the accident took place before September 15, 1995. Their Lordships held that the law prevailing on the date of accident will apply, the date of adjudication of claim is immaterial. Full Bench of this Court in case of Jibra Khan v. Shivcharandas and Ors. 1999 (1) JLJ 123 while considering whether the provisions of Section 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 were retrospective, observed that it is settled that the amendment dealing with the procedure is retrospective but if the amendment deals with the substantive law, the amendment is intended to be prospective only unless the amending law has expressly given it retrospective effect or is so by necessary implication and held that Section 140 was not retrospective. We, therefore, hold that the amending Act which came into force after the date of accident has no bearing on the case. As stated earlier on the date of accident i.e. March 5, 1981, a person employed on monthly wages not exceeding 1000 rupees, was held to be 'workman'. Therefore, it is to be seen whether the monthly wages of the deceased were 1000 rupees. It is true that Kamlabai, widow of the deceased, deposed that her husband was paid 1000 rupees as salary and 300 as allowance, the learned Commissioner held in Issue No. 3 that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 1000/-. As stated earlier this accident took place on March 5, 1981. This application was filed on September 4, 1981 when the definition of the workman included a person who was receiving wages as Rs. 1000/- per month. 1000/-. As stated earlier this accident took place on March 5, 1981. This application was filed on September 4, 1981 when the definition of the workman included a person who was receiving wages as Rs. 1000/- per month. Initially it was pleaded in the claim application that the deceased was employed on the monthly salary of Rs. 600/- and allowance of Rs. 300/-. It appears that when in the year 1984, "Rs. 1000/-" from the definition of workman under Section 2(n) were omitted, the appellant's Counsel amended the application and in place of Rs. 600/- Rs. 1000/-' were incorporated. 7. Be that as it may, as stated above, the learned Commissioner after discussing evidence held that the monthly salary of deceased was Rs. 1000/- per month. But in Issue No. 6 (wrongly typed as Issue No. 5) held that the pay of the deceased was proved to be Rs. 1300/-p.m. in the year 1983, therefore, the deceased was not a 'workman' and dismissed the compensation application. As mentioned above the respondent non-applicant Insurance Company did not challenge the status of the deceased as 'workman', therefore, in this case, it being an admitted fact that the deceased was a workman, the respondent without amending its written statement could not contend that the deceased was not a workman. In our opinion, the learned Commissioner committed error in considering this point, when there was no pleading in this regard in the written statement. Party cannot be allowed to go beyond its pleading. 8. Learned Counsel Shri Punegar urged that the Commissioner while determining the monthly wages of the deceased in Issue No. 3 did not take into consideration the travelling allowance, as part of the salary as the allowance is paid when the driver goes out of the place where he is employed and if he does not go out of the place of duty and continues to work at the place of employment, travelling allowance is not paid. He stated that in calculating the amount of compensation, travelling allowance is not taken into consideration, and that was the reason why the learned Commissioner held that monthly wages of the deceased were Rs. 1000/-in issue No. 3 The Commissioner could not adopt different scale. For calculation of compensation he held his salary at Rs. 1000/-per month and for determining his status he held his wages to be Rs. 1300/-. 1000/-in issue No. 3 The Commissioner could not adopt different scale. For calculation of compensation he held his salary at Rs. 1000/-per month and for determining his status he held his wages to be Rs. 1300/-. We hold that as the Commissioner found monthly wages of the deceased at Rs. 1000/- in Issue No. 3, the deceased was covered in the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(n). In our opinion, the learned Commissioner committed error in dismissing the application of the appellant holding that the deceased was not a workman. 9. We do not think it proper to remand the case for calculation of compensation amount after lapse of such a long period. We quote Section 4 as it stood on the date of accident. 4. Amount of Compensation (1) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely: (a) Where death results from the injury and the deceased workman has been in receipt of monthly wages falling within limits shown in the first column of Schedule IV the amount shown against such limits in the third column thereof: XX XX XX XX XX XX In first column of Schedule V, amount of compensation of Rs. 30000/- has been shown for the death of a workman whose monthly wages were more than Rs. 900/-but not more than Rs. 1000/-, therefore, the appellants are entitled to Rs, 30000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 10. In the result the appeal is allowed and it is directed that the Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company shall pay Rs. 30000/- with interest at the rate of 15% from the date of filing of the application i.e. April 1, 1981 till payment. The Respondent No. 1, the owner did not deposit the amount of compensation within one month from the receipt of notice under Section 4, therefore, it is directed that he shall pay penalty of Rs. 15000/- to the appellants. The respondent shall pay costs to appellants. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 1000/-, if certified.