ORDER With consent, heard finally. 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 [for short "the Act"] against the order dated 4.12.2007 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court), Ujjain in Case No. 68/05/W.C. Act (N.F.). 2. Briefly stated the appellant was working with the Respondents on the post of Line-man. On 17.6.2002 at about 6:00 a.m. while he was repairing high tension electricity line, on account of electrocution he suffered grievous injuries to his left hand. As a result, his hand from shoulder was amputated. He filed a claim petition under the Act seeking compensation from the respondents. 3. The respondents opposed the claim petition by denying the averments made by the appellant in his claim petition. The Commissioner framed 6 Issues and after recording evidence awarded compensation of Rs. 2,53,344/- to the appellant. The Commissioner further ordered that in case the respondents failed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days, the appellant shall be entitled for interest @ 12% per annum. Feeling aggrieved by the direction of the Commissioner in regard to the fixing of liability to pay interest only in case the amount is not deposited within 30 days, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. The only substantial question of law argued and involved in this case is as to whether the Commissioner has erred in not allowing the interest on compensation from the date of accident and erred in fixing the liability to pay interest on the respondents in case of non-deposit of amount within 30 days and thereby not followed the mandate of the law as provided under section 4- A (3) of the Act. . 5. In support of the contention that the appellant is entitled for interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and another [ AIR 1976 SC 222 ]; on the Division Benchjudgment of Kerala High Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha and others [2007 (115) FLR 1106]; and a Single Bench judgment of Gujrat High Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shakura Ishaq Bhaya and another [2008 (2) ACCD 1383]. 6. Ltd. v. Rekha and others [2007 (115) FLR 1106]; and a Single Bench judgment of Gujrat High Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shakura Ishaq Bhaya and another [2008 (2) ACCD 1383]. 6. On the other hand Shri G.S. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and another [2007 LIC 1452]. 7. In order to decide the controversy involved in this appeal, it would be appropriate to quote section 4-A of the Act: "4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default. n (1) Compensation under section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) In case where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim. (3) 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 thereo 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; and (b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, and interest thereon pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount by way of penalty: Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed." 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and another (supra), while dealing the identical question, in paragraphs 7 & 8 has held as under: "In case of a personal injury caused to a workman by an accident which arises out of and in the course of employment, unless the right to compensation is taken away under sub-section (5) of section 3, the employer becomes liable to pay the compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury is caused to the workman. S. 19 only provides for settlement by the Commissioner of any question regarding liability of any person to pay compensation or the amount or duration of compensation, in default of any agreement, if such question arises in any proceeding under the Act. The section does not have the effect of suspending the liability of an employer to pay compensation under S. 3 till after the settlement cotemplated under S. 19. It is the duty of the employer to pay compensation under S. 4-A (1) at the rate provided by S. 4 as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman. Where the employer fails to do so and also makes no provisional payment under S. 4 (2) but challenges the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, the employer is liable to pay interest and penalty." 9. In the case National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha and others (supra), the Division Bench of Kerala High Court considered the words "fell due" as provided under section 4-A of the Act and has observed thus: "When compensation "fell due" is the main dispute. Section 3 mandates payment of compensation by employer immediately when injury occurs to a workman in the course of employment arising out of employment. Section 4-A (1) also casts liability to pay compensation "as soon as it falls due" and section 4-A (3) casts liability to pay interest if it is not paid within one month from the date compensation amount "fell due" It is clear from the statutory provisions that amount of compensation fell due on the date of accident itself. Interest liability can be avoided by making payment/deposit or at least provisional payment/deposit within a month of the accident. If compensation "falls due" only on the date of award, compensation has to be calculated on the provisions of the Act existing on the date of award. Interest liability can be avoided by making payment/deposit or at least provisional payment/deposit within a month of the accident. If compensation "falls due" only on the date of award, compensation has to be calculated on the provisions of the Act existing on the date of award. Now, it is settled law that compensation has to be calculated with reference to the provisions of the Act as on the date of accident as compensation "fell due" on that date itself." 10. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shakura Ishaq Bhaya and another (supra), the Gujrat High Court while considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and another (supra) as also the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and another (supra) noticing the fact that the judgment of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and another (supra) being a judgment of Bench consisting of 4 Judges of the Supreme Court and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and another (supra) being a judgment of 2 Judge Bench not noticing the earlier judgment of 4 Judge Bench has held that as per settled law the judgment of the Larger Bench will have to be followed and accordingly followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and another (supra). The view taken by the Gujrat High Court to follow the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court finds support by the judgment of the Special Bench consisting of 5 Judges in the case of Jabalpur Bus Operators Association and others v. State of M.P. and others [ 2003 (1) JLJ 105 = (2003) 1 MPLJ 513 ]. 11. Having regard to, the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the accident occurred on 17.6.2002 of which no compensation was deposited by the respondents, in my considered view having regard to provisions contained in section 4-A of the Act and the law laid down in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and another (supra), the impugned order passed by the Commissioner cannot be sustained. 12. The appellant is entitled for interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till payment. 12. The appellant is entitled for interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till payment. Thus, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled for interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till payment. 13. No other point is urged. 14. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.