JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. In challenge is the judgment and order dated 30.6.2005 passed by learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Cachar, Silchar, in WC Case No. 90/2003. The appeal is by the insurer of the motor vehicle involved under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('the Act'). 2. I have heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. K.K. Dey, learned Counsel for the claimants/Respondents. 3. The Respondent No. 1, Gouri Dey, having lodged a claim with the Commissioner under the Act for payment of compensation following the death of her husband arising out of an accident that had occurred on 5.9.2003, involving Motor Vehicle (Truck) No. MZ-02/2313. Notices were issued on the employer and the insurer of the vehicle. 4. The claimants/Respondents' case, in brief, is that at the relevant time, the deceased was in the employment of one Md. Nazrul Islam Laskar (opposite party No. 1 in the claim proceeding) as a driver of the aforementioned vehicle (truck). The vehicle, while being driven by him, carrying some grocery goods met with an accident near Baktawng under Sherchip Police Station due to sudden mechanical failure and rolled down in a deep gorge about 50 feet from the main road. The deceased having then received serious injuries was, thereafter, shifted to the Sherchip Civil Hospital and Aizawl Civil Hospital in succession. As his condition in spite of the medical attention there did not improve, he was further admitted to the Silchar Medical College Hospital and finally to the Neurological Institute, Guwahati, where he eventually succumbed to his injuries on 10.9.2003. The employer on entering appearance in the proceeding admitted the employment of the deceased under him as a driver of the ill fated vehicle. He, however, denied his liability for payment of compensation contending that the vehicle at the relevant time, had been insured with the present Appellant. The insurer/Appellant, which was impleaded as opposite party No. 2 in the claim proceeding, in its written statement also denied its liability. 5. The learned Commissioner on a consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced, awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,15,960, along with a further sum of Rs. 2,500 towards funeral expenses. Interest at the rate of 9% per annum was also awarded, in case of the failure of the insurer/Appellant to make the payment within the time frame fixed. 4,15,960, along with a further sum of Rs. 2,500 towards funeral expenses. Interest at the rate of 9% per annum was also awarded, in case of the failure of the insurer/Appellant to make the payment within the time frame fixed. In quantifying the amount of compensation, the learned Commissioner applied Rs. 2,000 to be 50% of the wage of the deceased as contemplated under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. 6. Mr. Goswami, has argued with reference to the claim petition that it being apparent therefrom that the monthly wage of the deceased had been claimed to be Rs. 5,000, i.e., Rs. 2,000 as salary and Rs. 100 as daily allowance for meal charges, the learned Commissioner ought to have taken Rs. 2,000 as his wage for assessing the amount of compensation under the aforementioned provision of the Act. As the daily allowance in law cannot be construed to be a segment of a wage under the Act, the learned Commissioner erred in treating the monthly wage of the deceased as pleaded by the claimant and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order being patently unsustainable, is liable to be interfered with. 7. Mr. Dey, while admitting that though, daily allowance payable to a workman in law, cannot form a component of his monthly wage under the Act, the same per se, does not render in the instant case, the computation of the amount of compensation flawed and, therefore, the appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 8. A plain reading of the claim petition produced in course of the arguments, authenticity whereof is not in dispute, reveals that the monthly wage of the deceased was averred to be Rs. 5,000 made up of Rs. 2,000 as salary and Rs. 100 per day as cash allowance for meal charges. The impugned judgment and order also evinces that the learned Commissioner accepted Rs. 5,000 as the monthly wage of the deceased based on the averments made in the claim petition. Applying Explanation II to Section 4(1)(a) & (b) of the Act, the learned Commissioner accepted the deemed monthly wage to be Rs. 4000 and reckoned 50% thereof to be Rs. 2,000 and by applying the relevant factor of 207.03 assessed the amount of compensation tobe Rs. 4,15,960. 9. Applying Explanation II to Section 4(1)(a) & (b) of the Act, the learned Commissioner accepted the deemed monthly wage to be Rs. 4000 and reckoned 50% thereof to be Rs. 2,000 and by applying the relevant factor of 207.03 assessed the amount of compensation tobe Rs. 4,15,960. 9. There being no wrangle at the Bar that daily allowance cannot be permissibly accounted for to determine the monthly wage of a workman under the Act, the starting premise of treating Rs. 5,000 to be the monthly wage of the deceased in the instant case is obviously erroneous. The fixed monthly salary of the deceased being Rs. 2,000, in the. face of the pleaded averment to the said effect and in absence of any other evidence testifying his higher monthly wage, the learned Commissioner was obliged in law to take 50% of Rs. 2,000 in the formula envisaged under Section4(1)(a) for quantifying the amount of compensation. 10. In the above view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order is interfered with. The appeal is allowed. The matter-stands remitted to the learned Commissioner for a fresh computation of the amount of compensation in terms of the determination made hereinabove. The learned Commissioner would endeavour to dispose of the proceeding on remand within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and or the records, whichever is later. Send down the records immediately. No costs. Appeal allowed