JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensations' Act, 1923 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 18.08.2007 passed by Additional Workmen Compensation Commissioner in W.C.C. No. 4 of 2003, Dilshad Begum & others Vs Girish Kumar Agarwal & another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Matloob Ahmad (driver) was working as a driver in tanker No. UP21/6638 under the employment of Sri Girish Kumar Agarwal. On 08.12.2002, the deceased was going from Landhora Depot to Ramnagar along with Conductor Fayeem to take oil. When he was returning from Landhora Depot, he was kidnapped and was murdered on 10.12.2002. The claimants are the dependent upon the deceased. Hence, they have filed an application/claim petition before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Thereafter, notices were served upon the opposite parties. Both the parties filed their separate written statement before the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,78,415/- as amount of compensation from the date of filing the compensation. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 2,41,028.40 as compensation and Rs. 1,37,386.18 as interest @ 12% per annum vide judgment and award dated 18.08.2007. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. has preferred this appeal. 5. Heard Sri M.K. Agarwal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri R.B. Agarwa, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Sri M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case, the interest on the awarded amount has been levied by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner from the date of filing the petition. He has submitted that the interest should have been awarded by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner from the date of adjudication of the award. He has relied on the judgment of the National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mubasir Ahmed reported in 2007 (2) T.A.C. 3 (S.C.). 7. He has submitted that the interest should have been awarded by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner from the date of adjudication of the award. He has relied on the judgment of the National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mubasir Ahmed reported in 2007 (2) T.A.C. 3 (S.C.). 7. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants on the other hand has submitted that in case of death, the interest shall be awarded from the date of the death or permanent disability/accident and not from the date of the adjudication of the award. In support of his contention, he has cited before me a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Valsala K. reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3592. 8. Having considered the rival contention of the parties and perusing the judgment cited before me by the learned counsel for the parties, the condition emerges as follows. The judgment of Kerala State Electricity Board (Supra) deals with the question where the claim in respect of death of permanent disablement resulting from an accident caused during the course of employment took place prior to 15.09.1995 while the judgment of the Supreme Court, National Insurance Company Vs Mubasir Ahmed (Supra) deals with the point about the payment of the rate of interest, in case, where the accident took place after amendment of Section 4-A in the year 1995. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited by the appellant, National Insurance Company Vs Mubasir Ahmed (Supra) has held in paragraph 9, as follows:- "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 Singh1. 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. 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 of 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." 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court has thus expressed the view that the crucial expression is "falls due" and for the same reason the legislature, significantly has not used the expression "from the date of accident". Hence, unless there is adjudication, the question of an amount falling due does not arise. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the claimants would be entitled for an interest of 12% on the awarded amount from the date of adjudication and not from the filing of the petition. The appeal thus is liable to be partly allowed and the impugned judgment is modified to an extent that the amount of interest to be awarded in favour of the claimants shall be from the date of adjudication. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,41,028.40 along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of adjudication instead of from the date of filing the claim petition as has been awarded by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner. 13. The excessive amount deposited by the appellant before the court below shall be returned to the appellant as and when he moved the application.