Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/applicant against the Award and Decree, dated 28.03.2005, passed in W.C.No.307/2004, by the Deputy Commissioner for Labour-I (Commissioner for Workmens Compensation-I), Chennai600 006, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,50,434, payable by the respondent with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/applicant, D. Chinnathambi has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai-6. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 26.04.2003, at about 9.30 a.m. while the applicant was doing repair work at the opposite partys building bearing Door No.26, Brahmin Street, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015, the Sarakambu, on which the applicant was standing, broke and so the applicant fell down from the second floor. Due to the above said accident, the applicant sustained fracture in the left femur and dislocation of bones in his left hip, left ankle and foot. After the accident, the applicant was admitted by the co-worker at Government General Hospital, and the applicant took treatment, as inpatient, in the above said hospital from 26.04.2003 to 30.04.2003. Subsequently, he had taken treatment as outpatient at Puthur Bone Setting Hospital for two months and after that the applicant took treatment, as inpatient, at Government General Hospital, Chennai, from 23.06.2003 to 22.07.2003. 4. During the course of treatment, plastic surgery was done in spite of that the wound has not yet healed and his leg has become shortened by 2" and so the applicants movements have become totally restricted. As the permanent disability sustained by the applicant, in the said accident has taken place arising out of and in the course of employment under the opposite party, Vasumathi, she is liable to pay compensation to the applicant. 5. Hence, the applicant has claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment of compensation under Sections 10(1) and 4(A) of W.C.Act. 6. The applicant had sent a legal notice to the opposite party on 11.12.2003, demanding settlement of his claim. Even though the opposite party admitted employment and accident in her reply notice, she failed to settle the claim amount and hence the applicant has preferred this claim. 7. 6. The applicant had sent a legal notice to the opposite party on 11.12.2003, demanding settlement of his claim. Even though the opposite party admitted employment and accident in her reply notice, she failed to settle the claim amount and hence the applicant has preferred this claim. 7. The opposite party, in her Counter, has resisted the claim stating that the applicant is not a workman within the meaning of workmen defined under Section 2(n) of the Workmens Compensation Act, since he was not employed for the business or trade of the opposite party. The applicants employment was only casual and it was for the purpose of doing repair work in the residential house of the opposite party. It was admitted that she engaged the applicant herein, who claims to be a mason, for doing some cement plastering work in the outer wall of her residential house Mehar Bhavan. Even while erecting the Saram with casuarinas poles on 26.04.2003, the applicant fell down and sustained injury. Despite the advice by this opposite party, to fix the poles firmly to the ground, the applicant climbed on the pole, without fixing the same properly and fell down. Immediately, he was taken to Royapettah Government Hospital, where he was admitted as inpatient, for treatment. It was submitted that the applicant got himself discharged from the hospital on 30.04.2003, contrary to the advise of the Doctors, who attended on him. The legal notice was sent to her only on 11.12.2003. The opposite party has therefore denied the claim of the applicant that due to the injury sustained in the said accident, his leg has been shortened by 2" and even if it was true it was only due to his own fault that he got discharged from the hospital contrary to the advice of the Doctors, and not taking proper treatment. 8. As such, it was prayed by the opposite party to dismiss the above claim application, as the claim was excessive and the injury caused to the applicant was due to his own fault. 9. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for their respective parties. On the applicants side, the applicant was examined as PW1 and the Doctor, who had assessed the disability of the claimant was examined as PW2 and 11 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. 9. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for their respective parties. On the applicants side, the applicant was examined as PW1 and the Doctor, who had assessed the disability of the claimant was examined as PW2 and 11 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. Ex.P1 is the Discharge Summary issued by the Royapettah Government Hospital; Ex.P2 is the Discharge Summary issued by the Government General Hospital; Ex.P3 is the Chits issued by the Puthur Bone Setting Hospital; Ex.P4 is the copy of the Advocate Notice sent on 11.12.2003 to the opposite party; Ex.P5 is the Acknowledgement Card; Ex.P6 is the Reply Notice sent by the opposite party; Ex.P7 is the Kandhanchavadi Medical Treatment issued records; Ex.P8 is the Private O.P.Chits; Ex.P9 is the O.P.Chits of Royapettah Government Hospital; Ex.P10 is the Disability Certificate and Ex.P11 is the Xray. The opposite party, Vasumathi, was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 10. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I framed four issues for the consideration in this case namely: (i) Was the applicant injured in the accident arising out of and in the course of employment under the opposite party? (ii) What is the applicants age and income? (iii) What is the quantum of compensation, which the applicant is entitled to get? (iv) Who is liable to pay compensation to the applicant? 11. The applicant, in his evidence, has deposed the same version of accident as was stated in his claim. He has stated that he was working as a mason under the opposite party and had constructed a scaffolding made of casuarina poles in the opposite partys house at No.26, Brahmin Street, Saidapet, and that while he was carrying out some work on the outside walls of the said house, the casuarina poles in the scaffolding broke, as a result of which, he had fallen down from a height of 18 feet. He had deposed that because of the fall, he had sustained fracture in his left leg thigh bone, dislocation of bone in his left hip, injuries in his head and loss of a tooth. He had further deposed that he had taken treatment as inpatient in Royapettah Government Hospital for five days and in support of this, he had marked Ex.P1, Discharge Summary. He had further deposed that he had taken treatment as inpatient in Royapettah Government Hospital for five days and in support of this, he had marked Ex.P1, Discharge Summary. He had further deposed in his evidence that he had taken treatment at Puthur Hospital and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P3, the Chits issued by Puthur Hospital; that he had taken treatment at Government General Hospital, Chennai, for a period of one month and in support of this evidence,he had marked Ex.P2, the Discharge Summary. He had deposed that during treatment, the flesh in his right thigh has been removed and grafted on to the sole of his left leg and that his left leg has been shortened by 3". As such, he has deposed that he has difficulty in standing and walking and that he can walk only with the support of a walking stick. He has further deposed that the opposite party paid a sum of Rs.200/- as daily wage; that his age was 54 years at the time of accident; that he is not able to do any work at present due to the injuries sustained by him and that he has claimed a compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act. 12. Though, the opposite party has admitted in her counter that the applicant was carrying out work in her house and that he had sustained injuries during the course of his work, she had claimed that it was only due to the negligence of the applicant that the accident was caused and that in the accident the applicant had sustained only simple injuries and that he had not followed the Doctors advice and so had not taken proper treatment for the injuries; that the disability caused to him was due to injuries sustained in some other way. On cross-examination, she had deposed that the daily wages paid to the applicant was Rs.200/-. But, she had refused to pay compensation to the applicant as the accident was caused by the negligence of the applicant. On cross-examination, she had deposed that the daily wages paid to the applicant was Rs.200/-. But, she had refused to pay compensation to the applicant as the accident was caused by the negligence of the applicant. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour was of the view that as the accident had happened while the applicant was doing repair work in the opposite partys house and as the opposite party had admitted that the accident happened during the course of work, while in the employment under the opposite party, the applicant has sustained injuries in the accident due to the nature of work and in the course of doing this work. As such, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was not inclined to accept the contentions of the opposite party that as the injuries sustained by the applicant in the accident was caused only by his negligence, he was not entitled to receive compensation as per the Workmens Compensation Act. Then the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I accepted the contentions laid down by the applicant and after careful scrutiny of Exs.P1 to P11 as well as the circumstances leading to the accident held that the petitioner sustained injuries while doing his work and in the course of employment under the opposite party. 13. One J.R.R.Thiagarajan, who was examined as PW2 has deposed that on 02.12.2004, he had medically carried out an examination of the applicant; that after such examination he had found that the applicant has sustained a fracture in the upper portion of the bone in the upper thigh of his left hip; that a portion of this bone has not joined and the other portions of this bone has joined in an improper way; that as a result the applicants left leg has been shortened by 2 ½ " in height; that the applicant has restricted movement of his left hip of 60 Degrees; that he walks only with the support of a walking stick and the disability sustained by him on this count has been assessed at 40%; that a surgical skin graft operation has been done in an area of 5 X 5 Cms. in the applicants left leg; that the applicant is unable to move the sole of this left leg due to the improper joining of bones in this portion; that he has assessed the disability sustained by the applicant on this count as 30%. in the applicants left leg; that the applicant is unable to move the sole of this left leg due to the improper joining of bones in this portion; that he has assessed the disability sustained by the applicant on this count as 30%. The PW2 has deposed that the applicant has sustained 75% disability in the accident and in support of this assessment has marked Ex.P10, Disability Certificate and Ex.P11, Xrays. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, on perusal of evidence of PW2 and scrutiny of Exs.P10 and P11 and after seeing the applicant held that the disability sustained by the applicant was 75%. 14. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour on scrutiny of Exs.P1 and P2, Discharge Summaries issued by hospital and also the evidence of the applicant, held that the age of the applicant was 54 years at the time of the accident. Though, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour accepted that the applicant was getting a daily wage of Rs.200/-, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, considering that the employment was temporary in nature held that the income of the applicant could be taken only as Rs.4,000/- as per the Workmens Compensation Act. The compensation was calculated on the basis of the applicants age as 54 years, multiplier of 139.13; monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- and disability of 75% and the assessed compensation was calculated as 75/100 X Rs.4,000/- X 139.13 X 60/100 = Rs.2,50,434/-. 15. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour directed the opposite party to deposit the above said award into the credit of the W.C.No.307/2004, by the Deputy Commissioner for Labour-I (Commissioner for Workmens Compensation-I), Chennai-600 006, within a period of 30 days from the date of its Order. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour ruled in the failure to deposit the said award within the stipulated period, an interest of 12% will have to be paid by the opposite party on the award granted from the date of accident ie.26.04.2003 till the date of deposit of compensation, into the credit of the W.C.No.307/2004, by the Deputy Commissioner for Labour-I (Commissioner for Workmens Compensation-I), Chennai-600 006. There was no order as to costs. 16. There was no order as to costs. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour ought to have fixed the loss of earning capacity of the appellant/applicant as 100% as per the reported Judgement in 1996 LLR 595 and 1992 11 LLJ 377, as the appellant is not in a position to do any normal work and that an interest of 12% should have been awarded on the award amount from the date of accident under Section 4(A)(3) of the Workmens Compensation Act. Without imposing any condition, as this condition had given a loophole to the respondent to evade payment of interest on the awarded amount. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has cited the Judgments made in (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 518, K.Janardhan Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another, the head notes of which are as follows: "Labour Law – Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 – S. 4 and Sch. I Pt. II List 20 – Determination of percentage of disability and incapacity in earning capacity for computing compensation – Relevant considerations – Skill and occupation specific considerations besides the statutory prescription – Amputation of the right leg of a driver – Appellant (driver) would be disqualified from getting a driver licence under Ss. 8 and 9 of Motor Vehicles Act taken into consideration – Though 50% disability is prescribed in Sch. I Pt. II List 20 for amputation of leg, amputation of leg (right leg as in the present case) of a driver, held, would result in 100% disability and incapacity in earning capacity – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Ss. 8 and 9 – Tort Law – Compensation –Compensation of Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court Held: The appellant has suffered a 100% disability and incapacity in earning his keep as a driver as his right leg had been amputated from the knee. A perusal of Sections 8 and 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would show that the appellant would now be disqualified from even getting a driving licence. A perusal of Sections 8 and 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would show that the appellant would now be disqualified from even getting a driving licence. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (on the basis of 100% disability) granting compensation of Rs.2,49,576 and interest @ 12% p.a. Thereon from the date of the accident be restored and that of the High Court which had reduced it to Rs.1,62,224.40 is set aside." (2007) 5 MLJ 1059 , High Court of Madras, Marimuthuammal @ Marimuthu and Another Vs. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (on the basis of 100% disability) granting compensation of Rs.2,49,576 and interest @ 12% p.a. Thereon from the date of the accident be restored and that of the High Court which had reduced it to Rs.1,62,224.40 is set aside." (2007) 5 MLJ 1059 , High Court of Madras, Marimuthuammal @ Marimuthu and Another Vs. R.P.P.Construction (P) Ltd., Chennai and Others, the head notes of which are as follows: "(A) Workmens Compensation Act (8 of 1923), Sections 4-A(1) and 19 – Interest – Award of – Death of workman – Claim for compensation – Workman becomes entitled to compensation as it falls due, i.e., on the date the injury is caused and not at any subsequent dates – Injuries caused to the deceased on 12.01.1999 – Compensation became due to the claimants – Liability to pay interest would run from the date of 30 days after the accident – This is not kept under suspense or deferred until the determination made by the Commissioner – Workmens Compensation Act is a social security legislation and its provisions ought to receive a liberal interpretation – Interest @ 12% is payable from the date of the accident, in which workmen sustained injuries, resulting in death – Impugned order modified." 2009(1) TN MAC 714 (DB) (Ker.), High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. V. P.K.Ashraf & others, the head notes of which are as follows: "WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, Ss.3 & 4-A(3) – Interest on Compensation – Whether Insurer liable to pay interest also – Whether interest liable to be awarded only from date of award (i.e. 30 days after date of award) – In view of Apex Court decision in Harshadbhai Amruthabhai Modhiya, Insurer is not liable to pay interest – Only employer is liable to pay interest on delayed payment of compensation – Further, employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as injury caused to workman by accident arising out of and in course of employment – Therefore, interest is payable only from date of accident (i.e. 30 days after date of accident) – SC Constitution Bench decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo followed – However, decision of Two Judges Bench in Mubasir Ahmed holding that interest is payable only from date of award – Conflict between two decisions of Apex Court – Considered by Division Bench of High Court in Rekha holding that High Court bound by decision of Constitution Bench." 2007 ACJ 845 , Supreme Court of India at New Delhi, National Insurance Co., Ltd., V. Mubasir Ahmed and another, the head notes of which are as follows: "Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, section 4(1) (c) (ii) – Permanent partial disablement – Compensation – Non-schedule injury – Doctor indicated percentage of permanent partial disablement, functional disability and loss of earning capacity to the extent of 80, 65 and 80 per cent in three cases and Commissioner awarded compensation accordingly – Whether the High Court was justified in assessing 100 per cent loss of earning capacity without indicating any reason or basis – Held: no; Commissioners order restored. Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, section 4-A(1) – Compensation when falls due – Determination of compensation involves assessment of loss of earning capacity by a qualified medical practitioner – Whether compensation falls due when it has been adjudicated – Held: Yes. Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, section 4-A(3) (a) (as it stood after amendment in 1995) – Interest – Accident in which workman sustained injuries took place after the amendment – Whether the workman is entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent – Held: Yes. Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, section 4-A (3)(a) – Interest – Whether interest could be awarded from date of accident – Held: no; starting point is on completion of one month from the date it fell due." 2000 ACJ 5, Supreme Court of Indiat at New Delhi, Kerala State Electricity Board V. Valsala K., the head notes of which are as follows: "Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, sections 4 and 4-A)as amended in 1995) – Retrospective application – Compensation – Interest – whether sections 4 and 4-A as amended with effect from 15.09.1995 enhancing the amount of compensation and rate of interest are applicable to claims for death and permanent disablement resulting from accidents which occurred prior to that date – Held: no." 1976 ACJ 141, Supreme Court of India at New Delhi, Pratap Narain Singh Deo V. Shrinivas Sabata and another, the head notes of which are as follows: "(a) Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, section 2(1) (1) – Total disablement – Loss of earning capacity – A carpenter while doing work in the course of employment fell down and sustained injuries – As a result his left arm above elbow was amputated – He became unfit for the work of a carpenter – Held: the disablement is total and not partial as the work of carpentry cannot be done by one hand only. (b) Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, section 3, 4-A and 19 – Penalty – Interest – Duty of employer to pay compensation as soon as personal injury is caused to the workman – Employer ailed to make compensation – Section 19 does not suspend such liability – Whether the employer was liable to pay penalty and interest – Held: yes." (1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 52, The State of U.P. V. Ram Chandra Trivedi, the notes of which are as follows: "22.........It is also to be borne in mind that even in cases where a High Court finds any conflict between the views expressed by larger and smaller benches of this Court, it cannot disregard or skirt the view expressed by the larger benches. The proper course for a High Court in such a case, as observed by this Court in Union of India v. K.S. Subramanian to which one of us was a party, is to try to find out and follow the opinion expressed by larger benches of this Court in preference to those expressed by smaller benches of the Court which practice, hardened as it has into a rule of law is followed by this Court itself." 2002 (4) CTC 469 , High Court of Madras, The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Kaliya Pillai, the head notes of which are as follows: "Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 166(1), 167 – Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 Sections 3, 4, 4A, read with schedule IV – Compensation – Claim filed by parent of deceased – Death due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor and Trailer – Maintainability of claim filed under Motor Vehicles Act – Aggrieved persons can file claim for compensation either under Motor Vehicles Act or under Workmens Compensation Act and not under both. Law of Insurance – Liability of Insurer – Contract of Insurance – Death – Compensation – Valid Insurance coverage on date of accident – Liability of Insurance Company – Insurers liability is to be determined not only with reference to provisions under Motor Vehicles Act but also with reference to Contract of Insurance which would extend liability of insured under Workmens Compensation Act – Insurer was liable to extent of liability. Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 Sections 3, 4, 4A, read with schedule IV – Death – Claim for compensation – Liability of Employer – Employer is liable to pay compensation as soon as personal injury or death was occasioned in course of employment. Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, Sections 3, 4, 4A read with Schedule IV – Claim – Compensation – Payment of Interest – Accrual of Interest – Payment of interest would accrue 30 days after date of accident and not from date of quantification of amount." (2007) 5 MLJ 999 , High Court of Madras, H.Dawood and Another v. L.Thangarajan and Others, the head notes of which are as follows: "Workmens Compensation Act (8 of 1923), Section 4(A) – Claim for interest – Question whether claimants are entitled to claim interest from the date of the claim petition or only after expiry of 30 days from the determination of compensation amount – Interest is payable under Section 4-A(3) if there is default in paying the compensation due under the Act, within one month from the date it fell due, it has to be taken to be the date of adjudication of the claim – Compensation becomes due on the basis of the adjudication of the claim – Contention that interest should be awarded from the date of claim petition cannot be sustained – Claimants are entitled to get interest only after expiry of 30 days from the date of determination of compensation amount – Civil Miscellaneous Appeals dismissed." AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2433, Union of India and another v. K.S.Subramanian, the notes of which are as follows: "12. .........The proper course for a High Court,in such a case, is to try to find out and follow the opinions expressed by larger benches of this Court in preference to those expressed by smaller benches of the Court. That is the practice followed by this Court itself." (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 518, K.Janardhan Vs. United India Insurance Company and Another, the head notes of which are as follows: "Labour Law – Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 – S. 4 and Sch. I Pt. That is the practice followed by this Court itself." (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 518, K.Janardhan Vs. United India Insurance Company and Another, the head notes of which are as follows: "Labour Law – Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 – S. 4 and Sch. I Pt. II List 20 – Determination of percentage of disability and incapacity in earning capacity for computing compensation – Relevant considerations – Skill and occupation specific considerations besides the statutory prescription – Amputation of the right leg of a driver – Appellant (driver) would be disq2ualified from getting a driving licence under Ss. 8 and 9 of Motor Vehicles Act taken into consideration – Though 50% disability is prescribed in Sch. I Pt. II List 20 for amputation of leg, amputation of leg (right leg as in the present case) of a driver, held, would result in 100% disability and incapacity in earning capacity – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Ss. 8 and 9 – Tort Law – Compensation –Computation of Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court Held: The appellant has suffered a 100% disability and incapacity in earning his keep as a driver as his right leg had been amputated from the knee. A perusal of Sections 8 and 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would show that the appellant would now be disqualified from even getting a driving licence. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (on the basis of 100% disability) granting compensation of Rs.2,49,576 and interest @ 12% p.a. Thereon from the date of the accident be restored and that of the High Court which had reduced it to Rs.1,62,224.40 is set aside." Judgment made in C.M.A.No.1125 of 1997, High Court of Madras, Devanesam Vs. R.Manjula and others, the operative portion of which is under: "9. ..... As stated earlier, the Workmens Compensation Act, being a beneficial legislation, considering the object and scheme of the Act, particularly after insertion of Section 4A, we hold that interest for the compensation amount would accrue 30 days after the date of accident and not from the date of qualification. To make it clear that we are of the view that the liability to pay interest would run from the date on which the right to receive compensation accrues in favour of the workman namely the date of the accident and not on the date of issuance of orders by the Commissioner for Workmens compensation. 3. To make it clear that we are of the view that the liability to pay interest would run from the date on which the right to receive compensation accrues in favour of the workman namely the date of the accident and not on the date of issuance of orders by the Commissioner for Workmens compensation. 3. Following the above said Division Bench decision, it is clarified that in the Judgment dated 24.01.2006, the entire compensation amount payable, i.e. 1,01,925/- should carry interest calculated after the expiry of 30 days from the date of accident. To that extent, the Judgment stands modified. The respondent shall pay the interest on the compensation amount of Rs.1,01,925/- by calculating the same at the rate of 6% p.a. after the expiry of 30 days from the date of accident till the date of deposit after giving credit to whatever interest already paid or by virtue of deposit already made (if any) by the respondent." 17. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that as per the Workmens Compensation Act Section 3, the claimant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident or after one month from the date of accident. As such, the respondent/opposite party is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the compensation amount, ie. A sum of Rs.2,50,434/-. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent/opposite party is a 85 year old lady. As per the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-Is Order, she had deposited the compensation amount of Rs.2,50,434/-, into the credit of the W.C.No.307 of 2004. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the opposite party is not keeping good health and also has financial restraints and as such the opposite party is unable to pay the interest of 12% asked for by the appellant. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the vehement arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the cited case laws and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the Court is of the view that the compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I ie. a sum of Rs.2,50,434/- is reasonable. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the vehement arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the cited case laws and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the Court is of the view that the compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I ie. a sum of Rs.2,50,434/- is reasonable. As per Section 3 of Workmens Compensation Act and citations cited by the learned appellants counsel, the claimant is entitled to get compensation at the rate of 12% interest per annum on the award granted from the date of accident or from one month after the date of accident. Further, this Court is of the view that all cases have to be dealt with not only according to law, but also by the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case, the opposite party/respondent is an old lady aged about 85 years and not keeping good health. Further, she is a private individual and so this Court is of the view that heavy financial liability should not be laid down on her as the interest of 12% on the award, works out to a financial liability of an additional amount of about Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid by her. 20. This Court views compassionately the contentions raised by the respondent that the respondent has been burdened with this payment of heavy compensation, unexpectedly, in her life and hence this Court also acknowledges the repercussions that this payment might have on the future life of an individual/respondent herein. So, this Court, on considering the balance of convenience and for equity of justice to be maintained, and also considering that this is an exceptional case, scales down the rate of interest from 12% to 6% from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of remittance of compensation, into the credit of the W.C.No.307 of 2004 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Labour-I (Commissioner for Workmens Compensation-I), Chennai-600 006. 21. Therefore, this Court directs the respondent/opposite party to deposit the interest, calculated at 6% on the award amount of a sum of Rs.2,50,434/-from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of remittance of compensation, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. 21. Therefore, this Court directs the respondent/opposite party to deposit the interest, calculated at 6% on the award amount of a sum of Rs.2,50,434/-from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of remittance of compensation, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. As the accident happened in the year 2003, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with interest, lying in the credit of the W.C.No.307 of 2004, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Labour-I (Commissioner for Workmens Compensation-I), Chennai600 006, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. 22. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed with the above observations and the award and decree, dated 28.03.2005, passed the Deputy Commissioner for Labour-I (Commissioner for Workmens Compensation-I), Chennai600 006, in W.C.No.307/2004, is modified. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.