JUDGMENT The appeal is fixed for final hearing with consent of parties. As such, Rule made returnable forthwith. with the consent of parties. 2. The appellants are the original claimants. They had filed an application for compensation on account of death of deceased Bhausaheb, who was working as a driver on heavy vehicle with the present respondent No. 1. The Truck, which was driven turned. turtle, and, the deceased died on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- per month and Bhatta of Rs.3,000/- along with 4% commission per trip amounting to Rs.3,000/-. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has considered the salary as Rs.2,500/- only, and awarded the compensation. 3. Shri Patil, learned Counsel for claimants, contended that the ample evidence was on record to prove the salary. Even the employer has stepped in the witness box and has categorically stated that the salary of the deceased was Rs.4,000/- per month with Bhatta Rs.3,000/- and further commission, and even the claimant No.1 has stepped in the witness box and stated these facts, and no evidence is led by the respondents. The following substantial question of law arises : "Whether the Judgment suffers from perversity in appreciation of evidence ?" 4. Shri. KANADE. learned Counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company, submitted that no perversity can be found in the appreciation of evidence by the Commissioner. in as much as, even the salary cel1ificate. which was produced on record. was given after the death of the deceased. No evidentiary value can be attached to such certificate. He further submitted that the evidence of the Appellant No.1 and the employer does not inspire confidence and the Commissioner has rightly dealt with the same. 5. I have gone through the evidence of the parties. It is manifest that the employer, so also the appellant No.1 have categorically stated about the income of the deceased i.e. salary of Rs4.000/- p.m. + Bhatta and the commission. There is nothing on record to disbelieve that the deceased was not getting salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The respondents have not led any evidence in this regard. nor the evidence of the Appellant No.1 and the employer has been shattered in cross-examination. In such circumstances, when there is ample oral evidence on record, there was no reason to disbelieve the said evidence. 4,000/- per month. The respondents have not led any evidence in this regard. nor the evidence of the Appellant No.1 and the employer has been shattered in cross-examination. In such circumstances, when there is ample oral evidence on record, there was no reason to disbelieve the said evidence. In the light of the above, I feel that there is absolute failure on the part of the Commissioner to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective. In fact, it would tantamount to perversity in appreciation of evidence. 6. I hold that the deceased was earning salary of Rs.4.000/- per month, as such, compensation deserves to be awarded holding that the deceased was earning salary of Rs.4.000/- per month. 7. In the result. I modify the order passed by the Commissioner and pass following order: ORDER The opponents are directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.3.89.280/(Rs.Three lakhs eighty nine thousand two hundred eighty) to the claimants along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of this order till realization within a period of two months. The respondent No.2 has already deposited Rs.2.43.300/- (Rs.Two lakh forty three thousand three hundred). The said amount be adjusted from the amount awarded by this Court. Appeal accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.