S. P. KHARE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') by the employers against the award by which they have been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,21,619 as compensation with penalty at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and interest at the rate of 25 per cent per annum. ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that Gajanan Wadnekar was an employee of South Eastern coalfield Ltd. (SECL ). He was working in its coal mines in Johilla. He was timber mazdoor in Naurozabad Colliery. He met with an accident on 12. 9. 1995 during the course of his employment in the mines. He suffered permanent total disablement resulting from the injury sustained by him. He was sent for treatment by the employer to Bhilai Steel Plant Hospital and Medical college, Vellore at the costs of the employer and an amount of Rs. 1,08,455 has been deposited by the employer in the account of the respondent as compensation on 2. 3. 2000. Respondent was drawing an amount of Rs. 3,586 per month as wages on the date of accident. As per Explanation ii to section 4 of the Act, where monthly wages of a workman exceeds one thousand rupees, his monthly wages shall be deemed to be one thousand rupees only. As per schedule IV to section 4 the 'factor' applicable to the employee is 216. 91 as his age was not more than 25 years at that time. According to this calculation the amount of Rs. 1,08,455 deposited by the employer was according to law. ( 3 ) THE applicant in his application in para 11 claimed an amount Rs. 2,21,037 as compensation. It is not stated in this application how this figure has been worked out. In the impugned award also there is no discussion how the amount has been awarded as compensation. It was necessary for the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation to give the basis for awarding the amount of Rs. 2,21,619 as compensation. It is noteworthy that the accident took place on 12. 9. 1995 and section 4 of the act has been amended with effect from 15. 9. 1995. This has been done by Act 30 of 1995. It was necessary for the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation to give the basis for awarding the amount of Rs. 2,21,619 as compensation. It is noteworthy that the accident took place on 12. 9. 1995 and section 4 of the act has been amended with effect from 15. 9. 1995. This has been done by Act 30 of 1995. By this amendment, figure of 'one thousand rupees' has been substituted by 'two thousand rupees' in Explanation ii to section 4 of the Act. This amended provision would not apply to the case of the respondent as it has not been given retrospective effect. It is well settled that compensation is required to be determined on the basis of the law prevailing on the date of accident. ( 4 ) IN Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K. , 2000 ACJ 5 (SC), the question which arose for determination was whether amendment of section 4 of the Act made by the Act 30 of 1995 with effect from 15. 9. 1995, enhancing the amount of compensation would be attracted to cases where the claims in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from an accident caused during the course of employment, took place prior to 15. 9. 1995. Relying upon the earlier decision in Pratap Narain singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC), it has been held that an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman 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. The same view has been reiterated in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Khajuni devi, (2002) 10 SCC 567 . In view of this legal position the amount of Rs. 1,08,455 paid by the employer as compensation, as stated in para 2 of this order, was proper and the employer could not be directed to pay Rs. 2,21,619. Interest: ( 5 ) SECTION 4-A (3) of the Act before its amendment from 15. 9. In view of this legal position the amount of Rs. 1,08,455 paid by the employer as compensation, as stated in para 2 of this order, was proper and the employer could not be directed to pay Rs. 2,21,619. Interest: ( 5 ) SECTION 4-A (3) of the Act before its amendment from 15. 9. 1995 provided as under:"where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner may direct that, in addition to the amount of the arrears, simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount due, shall be recovered from the employer. "the substituted section 4-A (3) relevant for the present case is as under:"where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall- (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due;"in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K. , 2000 ACJ 5 (SC), referred above, it has been held that 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. But the question whether interest as per the amended provision can be allowed in respect of an accident which took place before 15. 9. 1995 but the compensation has not been paid for a long period thereafter, has not been decided in this case. ( 6 ) THERE is a decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in United India insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi, 1998 ACJ 1048 (Kerala), in which it has been concluded that the amended sections 4 and 4-A would not be applicable to claims in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from accident which occurred before the said date, namely, 15. 9. 1995. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh deo v. Srinivas Sabata, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC ). 9. 1995. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh deo v. Srinivas Sabata, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC ). It has been further held that sections 4 and 4-A cannot be given retrospective effect. ( 7 ) SECTION 4-A (3) as amended from 15. 9. 1995, as stated above, casts a duty upon the employer to pay interest if there is 'default' in paying the compensation within one month from the date it fell due. In the present case accident took place on 12. 9. 1995. The compensation ought to have been paid within one month. That was not done. The interest is payable for the default or delay in the payment of compensation. It has nothing to do with the date of accident. If the direction is given for payment of interest as per amendment from 15. 9. 1995 it would not amount to giving retrospective effect to section 4-A (3)of the Act. It would amount to extending a prospective benefit under the amended provision. ( 8 ) IN the celebrated book Principles of statutory Interpretation by Justice G. P. Singh, 9th Edn. , p. 462, there is a heading "statutes conferring prospective benefit on antecedent facts: Remedial statutes" in which it is stated:". . . the fact that a prospective benefit under a statutory provision is in certain cases to be measured by or depends on antecedent facts does not necessarily make the provision retrospective. Cases under these heads illustrate that the rule against retrospective construction is not always applicable to a statute merely 'because a part of the requisites for its action is drawn from time antecedent to its passing'. "the decision of the Privy Council in municipal Council of Sydney v. Troy, AIR 1928 PC 128, has been cited to illustrate the principle. The rate of interest payable upon compensation for land acquired by a municipal Council was raised by an Act from 4 to 6 per cent, it was held by Privy council that benefit of increase in interest from the date of operation of the Act was available also in respect of land acquired before the Act and such a construction of the Act did not give rise to any question of retrospective operation of the Act. ( 9 ) IN the impugned award interest at the rate of 25 per cent per annum has been awarded. ( 9 ) IN the impugned award interest at the rate of 25 per cent per annum has been awarded. This is in violation of provision in section 4-A (3) of the Act. According to this statutory provision simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum is to be awarded as per amended provision from 15. 9. 1995. In the present case, the amount of compensation has been deposited in the account of the respondent on 2. 3. 2000. Respondent is entitled to simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 15. 9. 1995 to the date of deposit of the amount of compensation in the account of the respondent. ( 10 ) THE employer has been further directed to pay penalty at the rate of 6 per cent by the award in question. This is also not understandable. It has been found that the employer had sent the employee to well-known hospitals, i. e. , Bhilai Steel plant Hospital and Medical College, Vellore for his treatment and a substantial amount was spent for this purpose. The respondent himself says that the employer spent more than Rs. 25,000 in his treatment. It could be ascertained at a later date that the employee is suffering from total disablement. In Bank Note Press, Dewas v. Umrao, 1997 (2) LLN 882, it has been held by a Division Bench of this court that where the management not only helped the worker but extended all facilities for his treatment, in that situation the imposition of penalty is uncalled for. The worker can in such a case be compensated by awarding interest. Therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, penalty could not be levied on the employer. The interest which has been awarded as per amended provision from 15. 9. 1995 adequately compensates the employee for the delay in the deposit of the compensation amount in his account. ( 11 ) IN the result this appeal is partly allowed. Amount of compensation is fixed at Rs. 1,08,455 instead of Rs. 2,21,619. The interest on the amount of Rs. 1,08,455 at the rate of 12 per cent per annum is allowed from 15. 9. 1995 to 2. 3. 2000, the date on which the amount of compensation has been deposited. The direction in the impugned award for payment of penalty is set aside. 1,08,455 instead of Rs. 2,21,619. The interest on the amount of Rs. 1,08,455 at the rate of 12 per cent per annum is allowed from 15. 9. 1995 to 2. 3. 2000, the date on which the amount of compensation has been deposited. The direction in the impugned award for payment of penalty is set aside. ( 12 ) BY the interim order dated 20. 9. 2002 of this court a direction was given that the amount deposited by the appellants be invested in FDR and the impugned order was stayed. The respondent will be paid interest in terms of the order passed today and costs as per impugned order out of this deposit and the remaining amount will be refunded to appellants. A copy of this order be sent to Mrs. S. Awadh, Commissioner, workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, sagar, for her future guidance. A copy of this order be also sent to other Labour courts in the State through Registrar, M. P. Industrial Tribunal, Indore. Appeal partly allowed. .