Judgment : This is a claimant’s appeal, which is filed to the extent of disallowed claim in W.C. No.75 of 1999 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad. 2. The claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3, 00,000/-with interest was filed by the appellant/claimant, who was working as a labourer on the lorry bearing No.ADG 1539 belonging to opposite party No.1 and insured with opposite party No.2. The appellant claimed that an accident occurred on 19.10.1997, while he was travelling in the said lorry during the course of the employment, resulting in grievous and multiple fracture injuries. The present claim petition was filed based upon the permanent disability, as certified by an Orthopaedic Doctor. While the first opposite party did not oppose the claim petition, the insurance company filed a counter generally denying all the averments in the claim petition. The claimant examined himself, as PW.1 and the doctor, as PW.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A5. However, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the opposite parties except marking Ex.B.1-copy of insurance policy. The Commissioner found on evidence adduced that the disability suffered by the claimant and the loss of earning capacity was in conformity with the certificate Ex.A5 issued by the doctor and assessed at 50%. The wages of the claimant were assessed at Rs.1800/-per month and taking the age of the claimant at 21 years, compensation of Rs.1,20,263/-was awarded. 3. The appeal is preferred seeking enhancement of compensation on the substantial questions of law framed in the grounds of memorandum of appeal and as urged during the course of arguments. 4. In this appeal, Mr.K.M. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the wages ought to have been awarded as claimed and established on the basis of the said claim, which remains unrebutted. He also submits that the appellant is entitled to interest in terms of Section 4-A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,1923 (for short ‘the Act’) 5. No representation on behalf of the respondents. However, the liability being within and in conformity with the valid insurance policy, as per the impugned order, the opposite party No.2 is liable to pay the compensation. 6. No representation on behalf of the respondents. However, the liability being within and in conformity with the valid insurance policy, as per the impugned order, the opposite party No.2 is liable to pay the compensation. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to monthly salary, as claimed, at Rs.3,000/-per month was rightly rejected by the Commissioner, as there is no material in support thereof. However, the Commissioner adopted Rs.1,800/-per month towards salary, which also has no basis. In such a situation, therefore, this Court is of the view, the Commissioner could have been well advised to adopt the minimum salary, as stipulated under explanation II to Section 4 of the Act and at the relevant point of time, the same being Rs.2,000/-per month, the same deserves to be adopted in the present case as against Rs.1,800/-, as adopted by the Commissioner under the impugned order. 7. This Court, therefore, inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order deserves modification to that extent together with liability as to interest under Section 4-A of the Act from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The award, therefore, is modified and worked out to Rs.1,33,626/-i.e.2000 x 60/100 x 222.71 x 50/100 = Rs.1,33,626/-and the same shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The award impugned shall stand modified to the extent indicated above. 8. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed in part. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.