JUDGMENT 1. This appeal under section 30 of the Workmen’s compensation Act, 1923 (in short “W.C. Act”) has been filed on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, whereby the claim of workman/respondent No. 1 has been allowed to the extent of Rs. 2,02,977/-. 2. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal since they are already mentioned in para 2 to 4 of the inpugned order. Suffice it to say that the workman met with an accident which arose out of and during the course of his employment and in the said accident his two fingers were amputated and third finger became seriously injured and therefore now he cannot discharge his work. According to claimant he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month and at the time of accident his age was 27 years. Thus, on the basis of medical evidence it was found that disability upto the extent of 40% was sustained by the claimant/respondent No. 1 and thus awarded a sum of Rs. 2,02,977 with a stipulation that in case said amount is not deposited within 45 days the claimant shall be entitled to 9% interest from the date of order. 3. The contention of Smt. Ruprah learned counsel for appellant is that the policy was obtained by mentioning wage upto Rs. 3060/- and if that would be position if the employer of workman was paying more salary exceeding the amount for which insurance was made, he himself is responsible and liability of insurance cannot be fastened upon the shoulders of Insurer on the excess amount of salary which was not insured. By inviting my attention to section 4(1)(C) of the W.C. Act it has been contended that since in the Schedule-I part-II the injury which the workman sustained is 20%, therefore, impugned order directing to pay compensation holding the disablement to be 40% is contrary to law. Hence it has been submitted that impugned order be modified accordingly. 4. On the other hand, Shri Chandulkar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued in support of the impugned order. 5. Hence it has been submitted that impugned order be modified accordingly. 4. On the other hand, Shri Chandulkar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued in support of the impugned order. 5. Shri Nair learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submits that the respondent No. 3 is Principal employer and he gave contract to respondent No. 2 whose workman is respondent No. 1, therefore, respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay any compensation so far as difference of wage which was insured and enhanced wage which was paid to respondent No.1 by respondent No. 2. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed in part and the impugned order requires modification. 7. So far as the contention of learned counsel for appellant that once the injury has been described in schedule I part II the compensation should be paid according to the Schedule. Learned counsel further submits that since it has been proved that two fingers of left hand of workman were amputated, according to Schedule, disablement should be held to be 20% is concerned, suffice it to say that apart from amputation of two fingers, the workman sustained several other more injuries which are not specified in the schedule and therefore on the basis of medical board certificates it has been rightly arrived at by Commissioner that disablement was 40%.Thus, this contention of learned counsel for appellant is not accepted. 8. However, there is some substance in the second submission of learned counsel for appellant. Admittedly vide policy (Ex. D/3C) the wage of workman has been shown by respondent No. 2 to be Rs. 102/- per day which comes to Rs. 3060/- per month for the skilled labour like respondent No. 1. True, it has been so stated by the claimant/respondent No. 1/that apart from monthly wages Rs. 3,060/- a sum of Rs. 30/- per day was paid by respondent No. 2 towards dearness allowance. But, this fact has been totally denied by respondent No. 2 in his written -statement. No document was ever summoned by claimant/respondent No. 1 in this regard in order to prove his bald oral statement that he was paid dearness allowance Rs. 30/- per day apart from amount Rs. 3060/- per month. If dearness allowance @ Rs. But, this fact has been totally denied by respondent No. 2 in his written -statement. No document was ever summoned by claimant/respondent No. 1 in this regard in order to prove his bald oral statement that he was paid dearness allowance Rs. 30/- per day apart from amount Rs. 3060/- per month. If dearness allowance @ Rs. 30/- per day was being given by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 certainly there must be some documents in power and possession of respondent No. 2 and therefore in absence of any documentary evidence in this regard, I am of the view that workman was earning Rs. 3096/- which has been shown by respondent No. 2 and which has also been admitted by him. Thus the impugned order is to be modified to the extent mentioned hereinabove. 9. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds in part and the impugned order is hereby modified and learned Commissioner is hereby directed to award compensation by fixing the wages Rs. 3,060/- per month. Let balance amount which has been deposited by Insurer may be refunded back to him. No costs.