JUDGMENT : DEEPAK GUPTA, J. 1. This appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act has been filed against the order passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Nalagarh, on 22.09.2005, whereby he awarded compensation of Rs. 55,336/-alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of award. 2. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has erred in calculating the compensation by taking the maximum income of Rs. 4,000/- per month which was incorporated by the amendment in Workmen's Compensation Act, 2000, w.e.f. 8.12.2000, whereas the accident had taken place on 1.6.1999? 3. The undisputed facts are that the accident took place on 01.06.1999. At that time, as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the maximum income, which could be taken into consideration for calculating the compensation was Rs. 2,000/- per month. However, by amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which came into force on 08.12.2000, this amount was enhanced from Rs. 2,000/-to Rs. 4,000/-. 4. The main objection to the award on behalf of the State is that the learned Commissioner gravely erred in calculating the compensation by taking the income at Rs. 4,000/- per month and should have only taken the income at Rs. 2,000/- per month. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General, contends that the accident occurred on 01.06.1999 and the rights of the parties fructified on the date of the accident. The amendments giving substantive effect cannot be made retrospective unless the legislation has specifically made them retrospective. 5. In fact, this question virtually stands decided. There are numerous judgments of the Apex Court on this point. The compensation has to be calculated as per the provisions of law as they exist on the date of the accident. The cause of action arises on the date when the accident takes place. 6. A Four Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Srinivas Sabata and Another, AIR 1976 SC 222 , held that an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman by the accident which arose out of and in the course of the employment. Thus, the relevant date for determination of the rate of compensation is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim. Thus, the relevant date for determination of the rate of compensation is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim. This judgment was followed in Kerala State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Valsala K and Another, AIR 1999 SC 3502 . The same view has been taken in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Khajuni Devi and Ors. reported in, (2003) 3 LLJ 566 SC. 7. This Court has also consistently taken the view that the rights of the parties are governed by the law as it exists on the date of the accident. This view has been taken in United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Nako alias Naiku Devi, 1996 (1) Sim. L.C. 370, wherein it was held as follows: 8. We may refer to Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edn. P.215, regarding retrospective operation of statutes in the following terms: Upon the presumption that the legislature does not intend that is unjust rests the leaning against giving certain statutes a retrospective operation. They are construed as operating only in cases or on facts which come into existence after the statutes were passed unless a retrospective effect is clearly intended. It is a fundamental rule of English law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act or arises by necessary distinct implication. 9. Applying the above settled law of interpretation, we hold that as the accident took place prior to the amendment of the Schedule IV of the Act, the compensation has to be assessed according to un-amended Schedule. We say so if retrospective operation is given to the amended Schedule, it will take away the rights of the parties, namely, the owner as well as the Insurance Company, in this regard. Therefore, the Commissioner erred in law in assessing the compensation under the amended Schedule IV. To similar effect are also the decisions of this Court in H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. versus Ganu Devi and others, Latest HLJ 2004 (HP) 945; Executive Engineer, B & R, HPPWD, Solan and another versus Kewal Ram, FAO No. 261 of 2003, decided on 17.07.2004; United India Insurance Co. To similar effect are also the decisions of this Court in H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. versus Ganu Devi and others, Latest HLJ 2004 (HP) 945; Executive Engineer, B & R, HPPWD, Solan and another versus Kewal Ram, FAO No. 261 of 2003, decided on 17.07.2004; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Smt. Salochana Devi and others, FAO No. 365 of 2001, decided on 24.10.2005; FAO No. 252 of 1998, FAO No. 308 of 1995 decided on 12.05.2005 and many other cases. 8. In view of the above settled position of law, it is clear that the compensation was payable to the claimant under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act as they existed on 01.06.1999. At the relevant time, the maximum wages which would be taken were Rs. 2,000/- per month. If the wages are taken at Rs. 2,000/- per month, then the compensation shall work out to Rs. 27,668/-. As far as interest is concerned, the claimant is entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from 01.07.1999, i.e. after giving a period of one month, as provided u/s 4-A of the Act. The claimant shall be interested from this date to the date when the amount was to be deposited. 9. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.