JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") against the order dated 20.10.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Jaipur District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner") in case No.40/93, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,84,170/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 17.12.1991, till realization. 2. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 original-claimants had filed the claim petition before the Commissioner seeking compensation for the death of Shri Ram Prasad, who was the husband of the respondent No.1 and father of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. According to the said respondents-claimants, the late Shri Ram Prasad expired in the accident which took place on 17.12.1991, when he was driving the truck bearing No.HYD-1837, which was owned by the respondent No.5 and insured with the appellant-insurance company. The said claim petition was resisted by the appellant-insurance company by filing the reply and contending inter alia that the claimants had not served the notice under Section 10 of the said Act and that the respondent No.5 owner of the vehicle had committed breach of the terms of the policy. The Commissioner taking into consideration the evidence on record passed the impugned order, against which the appeal has been preferred by the insurance company. 3. At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal had not incorporated the substantial questions of law as contemplated in the proviso to Section 30 of the said Act. Unfortunately, the said fact appears to have escaped from the notice of the office when the appeal was registered and from the notice of the Court when the appeal was admitted. The appeal, when came up for hearing before this Court today, it was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the appellant about the said fact by the Court and thereafter the learned counsel filed the substantial questions of law in the office today, which has been permitted to be taken on record, without being technical in the matter. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Alok Garg for the appellant that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner suffers from gross illegality so far as the award of interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident is concerned. Placing heavy reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of U.P.S.R.T.C. now Uttarakhand Transport Corporation v. Satnam Singh, 2012 ACJ 691 , and National Insurance Co. Limited v. Mubasir Ahmed and Another, 2007 ACJ 845 : 2007 I CLR 683 SC , Mr. Garg submitted that the interest on the compensation could be awarded from the date of the award only and not from the date of the accident. He also submitted that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is exorbitant and without any cogent evidence on record as regards the age and income of the deceased. The learned counsel Mr. Amit Punia for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 has not been able to refute the ratio of the judgments laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel Mr. Garg. He however submitted that the interest @ 12% per annum be continued. 5. In the instance case, the only question of law raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is as to whether the Commissioner, could have awarded interest from the date of accident or not. The said issue has been squarely covered by the decisions of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in case of U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Satnam Singh (supra). The Apex Court relying upon the earlier judgment in case of National Insurance Company v. Mubasir Ahmed & Anr. (supra) has categorically held while interpreting the expression "falls due", that the compensation becomes due on the date on which the claim is adjudicated and not from the date of the accident. 6. In view of the said settled legal position, the order passed by the Commissioner deserves to be modified to the extent that the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner shall be paid to the respondents-claimants @ 12% per annum from the date of award i.e. 20.10.1999 instead of from the date of accident. Rest of the amount deserves to be confirmed, in absence of any other substantial questions of law raised by the appellant. Rest of the amount deserves to be confirmed, in absence of any other substantial questions of law raised by the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order of compensation stands modified to the aforesaid extent. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 20.10.1999 is partly set-aside. The appeal is partly allowed accordingly.Appeal partly allowed. *******