S. B. MAJAGE, J. ( 1 ) CLAIM petition filed by the first respondent under Sections 10 and 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred as 'act'), claiming compensation of Rs. 1,52,667. 50 paise with interest and cost from the appellant on account of permanent disability caused to him due to injuries sustained in an accident on 11-9-1995 at about 10 p. m. when he was working as driver of Autorickshaw bearing No. CTA 9641 on monthly salary of Rs. 1,500/- under the second respondent, has been allowed by the Commissioner awarding compensation of Rs. 2,63,940/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, after taking monthly wages at Rs. 2,000/-, applying Sections 4 and 4-A as they stand now from 15-9-1995 (after amendment ). As the Commissioner has applied provisions, which came into force after the date of accident and not applied the provisions as they stood on the date of accident, this appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, raising following substantial question of law:"whether Sections 4 and 4-A of the Act as amended with effect from 15-9-1995 apply to a claim arising out of accident that had taken place earlier to 15-9-1995?" ( 2 ) THOUGH the first respondent is served with notice of the appeal, he has remained absent and unrepresented. Notice to respondent 2 was dispensed with on 6-3-2002. So, heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, who submitted that Sections 4 and 4-A of the Act, as they stood on the date of accident only will apply and not as they stand now with effect from 15-9-1995 and as such, the compensation and rate of interest awarded require to be interfered with. Perused the record carefully. ( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, the accident in question had taken place on 11-9-1995 whereas, the amended Sections 4 and 4-A of the Act came into force with effect from 15-9-1995, and the Commissioner has applied the amended provisions and not the provisions as they stood earlier to said amendment. So, whether the Commissioner was right in applying amended provisions, is the point for consideration. ( 4 ) THE matter is no more res integra. So, whether the Commissioner was right in applying amended provisions, is the point for consideration. ( 4 ) THE matter is no more res integra. In the case of Pratap Narain singh Deo v Shrinivas Sabata and Another, the Supreme Court has held that it is the date of death/injury to workman, which is relevant to determine the amount of compensation and not the date of application or date of adjudication of the claim. A Full Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v Alavi, has held that amended provisions do not apply to a claim arising out of an accident which had taken place earlier to the amendment. While considering the same question of law, in the case of Kerala State Electricity board and Another v Valsala K. and Another, the Supreme Court has held as under. "a four Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo's case, supra, speaking through P. N. Shinghal, J. has held that an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workmen by the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. Thus, the relevant date for determination of the rate of compensation, is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim". Further, while approving the Full Bench decision of Kerala High court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited, supra, the Supreme Court has observed as under:"5. Our attention has also been drawn to a judgment of the Full bench of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance company Limited's case, supra, wherein the Full Bench precisely considered the same question and examined both the above noted judgments. It took the view that the injured workman becomes entitled to get compensation the moment he suffers personal injuries of the types contemplated by the provisions of the workmen's Compensation Act and it is the amount of compensation payable on the date of the accident and not the amount of compensation payable on account of the amendment made in 1995, which is relevant. The decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, to the extent it is in accord with the judgment of the larger Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh deo's case, supra, lays down the correct law and we approve it". In this view of the matter, the question of law raised is answered in negative holding that the amended provisions do not apply to a claim arising out of accident that had taken place earlier to 15-9-1995. So, the amount of compensation and rate of interest awarded by the Commissioner as per the amended Sections 4 and 4-A of the said Act, cannot be sustained. ( 5 ) IN the present matter, the first respondent stated that he was getting salary of Rs. 1,500/- with batta of Rs. 500/- per month. However, in view of the upper ceiling fixed at Rs. 1,000/- per month under Explanation II to old Section 4 (l) (b) of the Act, it has to be taken at Rs. 1,000/- per month. So, when an amount equal to 50% of said monthly wages is multiplied by the relevant factor, the compensation payable to the first respondent/claimant comes to Rs. 1,01,925/- [rs. 1,000/2 = Rs. 500/- x 203. 85 points (as age of claimant was 32 years)]. Similarly, in view of section 4-A (3) (a), as it stood earlier to amendment, the rate of interest. to which the first respondent/claimant is entitled to will be at 6% per annum and not at 12% per annum awarded by the Commissioner. So, the impugned order requires to be modified. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part modifying the impugned order holding that the first respondent/claimant is entitled to Rs. 1,01,925/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 11-10-1995, but rest of the things are kept intact. No cost. --- *** --- .