ORDER D.R. Deshmukh, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12-7-1995 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Jagdalpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Lower Court') in Case No. 18/93 W.C. Act/non-FA awarding compensation of Rs. 67,776/- to the appellant/workman against the respondents, i.e., the employer and the Insurance Company, appellant/workman has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth 'the Act'). 2. The factual matrix not disputed in this appeal is as under: Admittedly, the appellant/workman was under employment of the respondent No. 1 on 30-4-1989 as a driver of vehicle No. T.A.I. 2368, which met with an accident, due to which, lower 2/3rd of the left hand, le., from slightly above the elbow of the appellant had to be amputated. On the date of accident, the risk of the Workman was covered under a policy of insurance by the respondent No. 2. The appellant/workman was earning a salary of Rs. 2200/- per month and was aged 45 years on the date of accident. 3. The Lower Court held that due to amputation of the lower 2/3rd of the left hand of the appellant/workman, he suffered 80% loss of earning capacity and assessed compensation under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the amputation below the shoulder fell within the category enumerated under Part II of Schedule I of the Act. 4. Shri Prafull N. Bharat, learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and Anr., G. Anjaneyulu v. Alia Seshi Reddy and Anr. and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mani Ram and Anr., while contending that the workman was a driver and the amputation of the left hand had resulted in permanent total disablement, and therefore, the Lower Court ought to have awarded compensation under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. Reliance was also placed on Radhamony and Ors. v. Secretary, Deptt. of Home Affairs 1995 (1) Labour Law Journal 376 and Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Ors, while contending that although the workman/claimant had claimed a lesser amount than the amount to which he was entitled as per statute, the Lower Court was not precluded from awarding compensation under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. 5. v. Secretary, Deptt. of Home Affairs 1995 (1) Labour Law Journal 376 and Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Ors, while contending that although the workman/claimant had claimed a lesser amount than the amount to which he was entitled as per statute, the Lower Court was not precluded from awarding compensation under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. 5. On the other hand, Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate with Shri A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 argued that since the injury suffered by the workman squarely fell under Clause (2) of Part II of Schedule I of the Act, the Lower Court was justified in holding that the injury had resulted in permanent partial disablement and in awarding compensation under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act. Learned Senior Advocate for respondent No. 2 did not dispute that under the policy of insurance there was no clause excluding the liability of the insurer to pay interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded. Placing reliance on L.R. Fetro Alloys Ltd. v. Mahavir Mahto and Anr. , it was urged in the alternative that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay penalty for default of payment of amount within one month as stipulated under Section 4A of the Act. 6. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the workman had suffered total permanent disablement due to the amputation of the lower 2/3rd of the left hand as a result of the accident? (2) If yes, whether the Commissioner for Workmen, Jagdalpur ought to have assessed compensation under Section 4(1)(c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, I have perused the record. (2) If yes, whether the Commissioner for Workmen, Jagdalpur ought to have assessed compensation under Section 4(1)(c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, I have perused the record. Total disablement is defined under Section 2(1)(1) as under: (1) "total disablement" means such disablement, whether of a temporary of permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement: Provided that permanent total disablement shall be deemed to result from every injury specified in Part I of Schedule I or from any combination of injuries specified in Part II thereof where the aggregate percentage of the loss of earning capacity, as specified in the said Part II against those injuries, amounts to one hundred per cent, or more: Thus, disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature which incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of accident resulting in such disablement amounts to total disablement. Therefore, the first question that requires consideration is whether the appellant/workman had suffered permanent disablement due to the accident? 8. Admittedly, the appellant/workman was a driver. Due to the accident, arising out of and in the course of his employment the lower 2/3rd of his left shoulder was amputated. The nature of injury suffered by workman is such that he has been completely incapacitated from performing the work of a driver for the entire life. 9. In Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra), a Carpenter suffered amputation of the left hand above the elbow due to the injury suffered arising out of and in the course of employment. The finding recorded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that the injured workman being Carpenter by profession had evidently been rendered unit for the work of Carpenter due to the loss of left hand above the elbow because the work of carpentry could not be done by one hand was upheld by the Apex Court. The finding recorded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that the injured workman being Carpenter by profession had evidently been rendered unit for the work of Carpenter due to the loss of left hand above the elbow because the work of carpentry could not be done by one hand was upheld by the Apex Court. In G. Anjaneyulu (supra), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that although the workman had sustained 40 per cent permanent disability due to the fracture of the second, third and fourth rib on the right side and fracture of the right aerominal head, yet the evidence clearly showed that the workman has beer rendered permanently unfit for the work of a driver and it was, therefore, held that his loss of earning capacity should be taken at 100 per cent irrespective of the percentage of the disability sustained by the workman. A perusal of the definition of total disablement in Section 2(1)(1) also supports the above view because total disablement is not dependent on the injury being temporary of permanent in nature but is dependent on the fact that it should incapacitate a workman for all such work which he was capable of performing at the time of accident and resulting in such disablement. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that although the workman, a conductor in dumper truck, had only suffered the fracture on left upper arm during the course of his employment leading to disability since the Medical Board of three members had certified that the workman had been rendered unfit for the job of conductor, the disability of earning capacity of workman was held to be affected to the extent of 100 per cent. 10. In view of the above, placing strong reliance on Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the appellant/workman being a driver by profession on the date of the accident suffered total permanent disablement as he was permanently incapacitated from performing the duties of a driver of his entire life due to the injury suffered by him due to the accident arising out of and in the course of employment resulting in amputation of lower 2/3rd of the left hand. First question of law is answered accordingly. 11. First question of law is answered accordingly. 11. Once it is held that the appellant/workman had suffered permanent total disablement resulting from the injury in the accident, Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, as it stood on the date of accident, i.e., prior to the amendment is attracted: 4. Amount of compensation.--(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely: (a) *** *** *** *** (b) Where permanent total an amount equal to fifty per disablement results from cent of the monthly wages the injury of the injured workman multiplied by the relevantfactor; or an amount of sixty thousand rupees whichever is more: Explanation I: For the purposes ofXClause (a) and Clause (b) "relevant factor" in relation to a workman means the factor specified in the second column of Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of that Schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the completed years of the age of the workman on his last birthday immediately proceeding the date on which the compensation fell due. Explanation II: Whether the monthly wages of a workman exceed one thousand rupees, his monthly wages for the purposes of Clause (a) and Clause (b) shall be deemed to be one thousand rupees only. 12. Thus, the Lower Court erred in awarding compensation under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act as it ought to have awarded compensation under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. Second question of law is answered accordingly. 13. In this manner, since the appellant/workman was earning a monthly wage of 2200/- per month on the date of accident, for purposes of ascertaining his monthly wage under the Explanation II to Section 4(1)(b) of the Act would be assessed at Rs. 1,000/-. 50% of Rs. 1,000/- is Rs. 500/-. The age of the workman was admittedly 45 years on the date of accident. The relevant factor applicable under Schedule IV to the Act would be Rs. 169.44. Multiplying Rs. 500/- x 169.44 comes to Rs. 84,720/-. Since Rs. 84,720/- is an amount higher than Rs. 60,000/- mentioned under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, the same, i.e., Rs. 84,720/- has to be awarded as compensation under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. 14. It is true that the applicant had claimed a lesser amount than his entitlement under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, yet, as held in Radhamony and Ors. 84,720/- is an amount higher than Rs. 60,000/- mentioned under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, the same, i.e., Rs. 84,720/- has to be awarded as compensation under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. 14. It is true that the applicant had claimed a lesser amount than his entitlement under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, yet, as held in Radhamony and Ors. (supra) and Nagappa (supra), the Lower Court was not precluded from awarding a higher compensation as just and reasonable compensation. 15. So far as the question of award of interest and penalty against the insurer under the Act is concerned, in L.R. Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Mahavir Mahto and Anr. (supra), it was held as under: 5. The only contention put forth before us is that the entire liability including penalty and interest will have to be reimbursed by the Insurance Company and this aspect has not been examined by the learned Single Judge in the High Court and needs examination at our hands. In Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi , this Court after examining the entire scheme of the Act held that payment of interest and penalty are two distinct liabilities arising under the Act, while liability to pay interest is part and parcel of legal liability to pay compensation upon default of payment of that amount within one month. Therefore, claim for compensation alongwith interest will have to be made good jointly by the Insurance Company with the insured employer. But, so far as the penalty imposed on the insured employer is on account of his personal fault the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to reimburse penalty imposed on the employer. Hence the compensation with interest is payable by the Insurance Company but not penalty.... 16. The respondent No. 1/employer had remained ex parte before the Lower Court and did not comply with Section 4A, Sub-section (2) of the Act. Thus, the employer was in default in paying the compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due, therefore, the Lower Court ought to have awarded simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In the present case, it is not disputed that under the policy of insurance the risk of the workman under the Act was covered. As held in L.R. Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Mahavir Mahto and Anr. In the present case, it is not disputed that under the policy of insurance the risk of the workman under the Act was covered. As held in L.R. Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Mahavir Mahto and Anr. (supra), the insurer is liable to pay interest under Section 4A of the Act upon default of payment by the employer within one month. Although the Insurance Company has deposited a sum of Rs. 67,640/- on 31 -1 -1996 yet in view of the default made by the employer the insurer is liable to pay interest at the entire amount awarded. Deducting the above amount from Rs. 84,720/-, the remaining amount of Rs. 17,080/- shall be paid by the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company within a period of one month from today. The Insurance Company shall also be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 12-7-1995,4&, the date of impugned order till realisation on the entire sum of Rs. 84,720/-. Ordered accordingly. The appeal is allowed.