JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.—The above appeal has been admitted on following substantial questions of law:— (i) Whether the respondent Ambika Charan Sharma who was working as J.E. (Electric) at the time of accident is a workmen covered by the definition under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 as amended I from time to time? (ii) Whether the order of the Commissioner below is illegal on the grounds that the Commissioner had applied multiplier of Amended Act, 2000 for assessing the amount of compensation whereas the accident had occurred prior to Amended Act? 2. The facts, in brief, are that applicant Ambika Sharma, J.E. (E) Electrical Sub Division, H.P. P.W.D., Snow don, Shimla, met with an accident on 6.11.2000 while performing his duties on LT Panel. A non-fatal accident report was submitted by the Executive Engineer, Electric Division No. 2, H.P.P.W.D. Shimla-1 vide his letter dated 1.12.2000 informing the Commissioner about the accident. A notice was issued to the respondents and to submit requisite documents as well as their reply. 3. The further facts are that when applicant and others were working on LT Panel on 6.11.2000, they got Electric Sub Station shut down for conducting necessary repairs. At about 4 p.m. at the time of re-channelizing the cable on the pole it was felt that main line was leaking current, the applicant went to the Sub Station to inform Khiali Ram, another Junior Engineer, regarding leakage of the current despite shut down. When they were about to check the fault, a sudden flash of electricity caused extensive damage and burning of seven employees very badly; two employees succumbed to their injuries lateron, five of them suffered severe burns on their heads, hands and other parts of the bodies. The applicant also suffered severe burns on his head, cheeks, hands and legs. He remained under treatment for many months. An F.I.R. was registered. The disability of the applicant was assessed 80% by the Medical Board on 12.11.2001. 4. The Commissioner awarded Rs. 3,87,213/- compensation vide impugned order to the applicant. It has further been directed that in case the compensation is not deposited within two months then the respondents would be liable to pay 50% penalty on the compensation amount. The respondents have assailed the impugned order in the above appeal. The parties, for convenience, are referred in the same manner as in the impugned order. It has further been directed that in case the compensation is not deposited within two months then the respondents would be liable to pay 50% penalty on the compensation amount. The respondents have assailed the impugned order in the above appeal. The parties, for convenience, are referred in the same manner as in the impugned order. Substantial Question of Law No. 1: 5. It has been urged on behalf of the respondents that applicant was Junior Engineer (Electric) at the time of accident and, therefore, he was not workman under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act). On the contrary, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was workman at the time of accident even though he was Junior Engineer at the relevant time. At the relevant time, the definition of workman under Section 2(n) of the Act was as under:— "(n) "Workman" means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employers trade or business) who is— (i) xxx xxx xxx (ia)(a) xxx xxx (ii) employed 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 in 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, where the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them." 6. The definition of workman does not exclude the Junior Engineer working on electric lines and fixtures. On the contrary, Item (ix) of Schedule II of the Act is as under:— "(ix) employed in setting up, maintaining, repairing or taking down any telegraph or telephone line or post or any overhead electric line or cable or post or standard or fittings and fixtures for the same." 7. The applicant, Ambika Sharma, has deposed that on 6.11.2000 he, along with other employees, was working on electric pole. At about 2 p.m. electric Sub Station was shut down. At about 4 P.M. when they were fixing the cable then Dharam Dutt, workman, said that there was current in the line. The applicant, Ambika Sharma, has deposed that on 6.11.2000 he, along with other employees, was working on electric pole. At about 2 p.m. electric Sub Station was shut down. At about 4 P.M. when they were fixing the cable then Dharam Dutt, workman, said that there was current in the line. He went to the Sub Station to inform this fact to Khiali Ram, Junior Engineer, H.P.S.E.B. He told him that despite shut down there was current in the line. They saw the switch which was off but when they wanted to know the fault, all of a sudden there was a flash and all the seven workmen were badly burnt and received injuries. R.S. Rana, Assistant Engineer (Electrical), H.P. PWD, has deposed that due to electric flash in Sub Station the workmen, including the Junior Engineer, were injured badly. From the statement of applicant, Ambika Sharma, it is clear that he was engaged in repairing the line and in continuation of that work due to sudden electric spark, he, along with other workmen, was seriously injured. It is also the case of the respondents that the applicant suffered burn injuries when he was on duty. According to the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General, Junior Engineer is not a workman. There is no force in the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General. 8. In State of Rajasthan and others v. Workmens Compensation Commissioner, 1988 FLR (56) 622, it has been held:— "Two contentions have been urged before me by the learned Deputy Government Advocate. His first contention is that the injured being an Assistant Engineer in the workshop at Mahi Project cannot be deemed to be workman and his second contention is that the compensation awarded to him is excessive looking to the injury received by him. In my opinion there is no force in either of the contentions. According to the amended definition of workman the injured could certainly be deemed to be a workman inasmuch as he was employed in the workshop of the Mahi Project as an Assistant Engineer, the learned Commissioner has held him to be so and I do not see any reason to take a different view." 9. In the present case, Ambika Sharma was engaged in repairing electric line when accident took place. In the present case, Ambika Sharma was engaged in repairing electric line when accident took place. It is not the case of the respondents that the accident has not taken place during the course of employment of applicant Ambika Sharma. The nomenclature of the job does not matter, what matters is whether the person working on the job comes within the definition of workman. In my opinion, Ambika Sharma, applicant, was workman under respondents when he suffered burn injuries in the accident. Thus, substantial question of law No. 1 is decided in favour of the applicant Ambika Sharma and against respondents. Substantial Question of law No. 2: 10. The accident took place on 6.11.2000. The compensation is to be determined in accordance with the law existed on 6.11.2000. In Kerala State Electricity Board and another v. Valsala K. and another etc. etc., AIR 1999 SC 3502, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Khajuni Devi and others, (2002) 10 SCC 567 and Satya Devi Sharma and others v. Megh Pal and another, LLJ 2003 (1) 265 (HP), it has been held that compensation is to be determined according to the law prevalent on the date of accident. 11. In Section 4 by virtue of Act 46 of 2000 the words rupees two thousand have been substituted by words rupees four thousand with effect from 8.12.2000. On 6.11.2000 when accident took place maximum Rs. 2,000/- monthly wages of a workman could be taken into consideration for assessment of compensation. The applicant was drawing more than Rs. 2,000/- per month on 6.11.2000, therefore, his monthly wages for determination of compensation can be taken into consideration Rs. 2,000/ - only under Section 4 of the Act. It appears the Commissioner has taken salary of the applicant Rs. 4,000/- under Section 4 for assessing the compensation whereas it should be Rs. 2,000/- per month. The applicant has suffered 60% plus 20% permanent disability vide Ext. PW-l/D. The applicant was 44 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, in his case factor of 172.52 is applicable. The monthly wages of the applicant under Section 4 shall be deemed to be Rs. 2,000/-, therefore, in view of 80% disability, the applicant is entitled to compensation amounting to 172.52 x Rs. 960 (80% of 60% wages)=Rs. 1,65,619/-. The monthly wages of the applicant under Section 4 shall be deemed to be Rs. 2,000/-, therefore, in view of 80% disability, the applicant is entitled to compensation amounting to 172.52 x Rs. 960 (80% of 60% wages)=Rs. 1,65,619/-. The applicant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of adjudication which is the date of award. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and another, (2007) 2 SCC 349, the Honble Supreme Court has held:— "9. Interest is payable under Section 4-A(3) if there is default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due. The question of liability under Section 4-A was dealt with by this Court in Maghar Singh v. Jashwant Singh. By amending Act 30 of 1995, Section 4-A of the Act was amended, inter alia, fixing the minimum rate of interest to be simple interest @ 12%. In the instant case, the accident took place after the amendment and, therefore, the rate of 12% as fixed by the High Court cannot be faulted. But the period as fixed by it is wrong. The starting point is on completion of one month from the date on which it fell due. Obviously it cannot be the date of accident. Since no indication is there as to when it becomes due, it has to be taken to be the date qf adjudication of the claim. This appears to be so because Section 4-A (1) prescribes that compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. The compensation becomes due on the basis of adjudication of the claim made. The adjudication under Section 4 in some cases involves the assessment of loss of earning capacity by a qualified medical practitioner. Unless adjudication is done, question of compensation becoming due does not arise. The position becomes clearer on a reading of sub-section (2) of Section 4-A. It provides that provisional payment to the extent of admitted liability has to be made when employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed. The crucial expression is "falls due". Significantly, legislature has not used the expression "from the date of accident". Unless there is an adjudication, the question of an amount falling due does not arise." 12. The crucial expression is "falls due". Significantly, legislature has not used the expression "from the date of accident". Unless there is an adjudication, the question of an amount falling due does not arise." 12. In the present case, the Commissioner has adjudicated the compensation vide impugned order on 3.4.2002, therefore, on compensation amounting to Rs. 1,65,619/- the applicant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of adjudication which is the date of award. The Commissioner has awarded excess compensation to the applicant and, therefore, quantum of compensation awarded requires interference. Accordingly, it is held that the applicant is entitled to Rs. 1,65,619/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 3.4.2002 till payment. The substantial question of law No. 2 is decided accordingly. 13. No other point was urged. 14. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. It is held that the applicant is entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 1,65,619/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 3.4.2002 till payment. No costs.