Judgment : Rajiv Sharma, Judge This appeal has been instituted against Order dated 21.6.2014 rendered by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Court No.1, Hamirpur, HP in Compensation Petition No. 15/2011. 2. “Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that respondent No. 1 instituted a petition under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act against the appellant and respondents No.2 to 6. According to the averments made in the claim petition, deceased Manoj Kumar was engaged as a Driver by respondents No.2 to 6. He was paid Rs.7,000/- per month inclusive of other expenses. The tractor bearing registration No. HP-67-0408 met with an accident on 21.10.2006. Respondent No.1 is mother of deceased Manoj Kumar. Petition was contested by respondents No. 2 to 6. According to them, there was no relationship of employee and employer. They have already sold the tractor No. HP-67-0408 to Dinesh Kumar vide agreement dated 27.9.2006 (Ext. RW-1/a). The petition was also contested by appellant-insurance company. According to the insurance Company, deceased was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the Tractor in question. There was not employee-employer relationship between the parties. Rejoinder was filed by the claimant. Issues were framed by learned Commissioner on 4.4.2009. Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.7,74,795 to respondent No. 1 with interest @ 12% per annum from 21.11.2006 till its realization alongwith Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses. 3. Mr. Suneet Goel, learned counsel, on the basis of substantial questions of law framed, has argued that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence and there being no employee-employer relationship. Accident has taken place on 21.10.2006 but learned Commissioner has applied the amended provisions while awarding compensation. 4. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate has supported Order dated 21.6.2014. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 6. Kashmiri Devi has appeared as PW-1. She has reaffirmed and reasserted the facts mentioned in the petition. According to her, salary of Manoj Kumar was Rs.7,000/-. 7. PW-2 Mohinder Singh has corroborated the statement of PW-1. 8. PW-3 Dr. S.K. Soni has proved the post-mortem report, Ext. PW-3/A. 9. PW-4 Constable Ajit Singh has brought the record of FIR No. 185/2006, Ext. PW-4/A. 10. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, has vehemently argued on the basis of agreement Ext. According to her, salary of Manoj Kumar was Rs.7,000/-. 7. PW-2 Mohinder Singh has corroborated the statement of PW-1. 8. PW-3 Dr. S.K. Soni has proved the post-mortem report, Ext. PW-3/A. 9. PW-4 Constable Ajit Singh has brought the record of FIR No. 185/2006, Ext. PW-4/A. 10. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, has vehemently argued on the basis of agreement Ext. RW-1/A that the Tractor was sold by his client to one Shri Dinesh Kumar. However, RW-2 Rajinder Singh has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not know to whom, Tractor was sold. He did not know whether the Insurance Company was informed of it or not. Similarly, G.D. Sharma, RW-1, in his cross-examination, he has shown his ignorance about the fact that possession of the tractor was handed over to Dinesh Kumar after execution of the agreement. Parshotam Chand, RW-3 deposed that they sold tractor to Dinesh Kumar vide Ext. RW-1/A. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the registration certificate of the Tractor was in his name. He denied that they were paying Rs.7,000/- to the deceased. Agreement Ext. RW-1/A has not been duly proved by respondents No. 2 to 6. There is ample material on record to come to conclusion that Tractor was owned by respondents No. 2 to 6. It is evident from the statement of Parshotam Chand that the premium of the Tractor was being paid by him. His statement was recorded on 14.12.2009 and accident has taken place on 21.10.2006. In case, he has sold tractor already, there was no occasion for him to pay the premium. Copy of insurance is Ext. A1. Income of the deceased Manoj Kumar has not been rebutted. No evidence has been led to prove that deceased Manoj Kumar was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Tractor was insured with appellant-Insurance company. Evidence led by the claimant duly proved that the deceased was employed by respondents No. 2 to 6. He met with an accident on 21.10.2006. Employee-employer relationship was between Manoj Kumar and respondents No.2 to 6. Age of deceased was 22 years. However. Learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation has erred in law by applying amended provisions of Workmen Compensation Act. Income of the deceased was to be taken at Rs.4,000/- as per amended provisions on the date of accident i.e. 21.10.2006. Amended provisions could not be applied retrospectively by learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. 11. Age of deceased was 22 years. However. Learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation has erred in law by applying amended provisions of Workmen Compensation Act. Income of the deceased was to be taken at Rs.4,000/- as per amended provisions on the date of accident i.e. 21.10.2006. Amended provisions could not be applied retrospectively by learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. 11. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Valsala K., 2000 ACJ 5 (SC) have held that sections 4 and 4-A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 as amended in 1995 would not apply retrospectively. Their Lordships have held as under: “[4] A two Judge Bench of this Court in The New India Assurance Company Limited v. V. K. Neelakandan, Civil Appeal Nos. 16904-16906 of 1996, decided on 6-11- 1996, however, took the view that Workmen's Compensation Act, being a special legislation for the benefit of the workmen, the benefit as available on the date of adjudication should be extended to the workmen and not the compensation which was payable on the date of the accident. The two Judge Bench in Neelakandan's case (supra), however, did not take notice of the judgment of the larger Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo's case ( AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 Lab IC 222) as it presumably was not brought to the notice of their Lordships. Be that as it may, in view of the categorical law laid down by the larger Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo's case, the view expressed by the two Judge Bench in Neelakandan's case is not correct. [7] Insofar as these special leave petitions are concerned, we find that the accident took place long time back. Compensation became payable to the workmen, as it is not disputed that the accidents occurred during the course of employment, as per the law prior to the amendment made in 1995. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, pettiness of the amounts involved in each of the cases and the time that has since elapsed, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders, decided on the basis of the 1995 amendment, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, dismiss the special leave petitions, but, after clarifying the law, as noticed above.” 12. Learned Single Judge of Jharkhand at Ranchi High Court in Project Officer, Basudeopur Colliery vs. Dhaneswari Devi, 2014 ACJ 1325 has held that the calculation of compensation amount should be made under the provision existing on the date of incident relying upon Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Valsala K., 2000 ACJ 5 (SC). Learned Single Judge has held as under: “[3] It is further pointed out that the original claim of the claimant was also under the same calculation, but the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad has wrongly calculated the amount under the amended provision and therefore, the aforesaid finding of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court is liable to be set aside and the amount payable to the claimant shall be calculated in view of the existing provision as contained under section 4 at the relevant point of time. In this context learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the judgment in Kerala State Electricity Board and another v. Walsala Kr. and another, 1999 AIR(SC) 3502 In paragraph-5 their lordships have held as follows:-- 5. Our attention has also been drawn to a judgment of the Full bench of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi,1998 80 FLR 72 wherein the Full Bench precisely considered the same question and examined both the above noted judgments. It took the view that the injured workmen becomes entitled to get compensation the moment he suffers personal injuries of the types contemplated by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and it is the amount of compensation payable on the date of the accident and not the amount of compensation payable on account of the amendment made in 1995, which is relevant. The decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, to the extent it is in accord with the judgment of the larger Bench of this Court in Pratap Singh Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and another lays down the correct law and we approve it.” 13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Respondent No.1 shall be entitled to following compensation: Compensation= 2000 x 221.37 = 4,42,740/- The respondent No.1 shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid amount from 21.10.2006 till 24.9.2014 i.e. date of depositing of awarded amount with the Tribunal. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.