JUDGMENT : The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd through its Regional Manager has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 28.2.2006 passed by the learned WC Commissioner at Guwahati in WC Case No. 53 of 2004 thereby directing the insurance company to make payment of Rs. 1,02,186/- as compensation to the claimant under section 4(i) © (ii) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (now renamed as ‘Employees Compensation Act, 1923’ and hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act’). 2. The basic fact involved in this appeal is that one Sahadat Khan filed a claim petition before the WC Commissioner stating that he was employed by one Mazid Ali of Barpeta as handyman of a Tata Mobile vehicle No. AS-15/7806. On 5.1.2004, when the vehicle was moving, it met with an accident at NH-30 at Chakchaka under Sorbhog PS. The vehicle turned turtle on the left side of the road and consequently the handyman sustained fracture injury on his head and on his right humerus in addition to a contusion on right joint and bruise on other parts of the body. He was initially treated at SHC Sorbhog and thereafter to Barpeta Civil Hospital . According to him, because of the injuries, he could not pursue his occupation and was in a position to live on hand to mouth. He claimed that he was receiving salary of Rs.2500/- per month including daily allowance and that he was 36 years of age. On being notified, the owner opposite party No.1 appeared and submitted written statement admitting basic facts like employment, accident and quantum of salary. But opposite party No.1 did not thereafter contest and so the proceeding was held exparte against him . Opposite party No.2, insurance company by filing written statement denied all the averments on facts and stated that it does not have any liability or responsibility to make payment of compensation. On the basis of these rival contentions, the WC Commissioner asked the parties to adduce their evidence. 3. Claimant examined himself as PW-1 and Dr. SC Sharma as PW-2. The insurance company did not examine any witness but cross examined the witnesses of the claimant thoroughly. On the basis of these rival contentions, the WC Commissioner asked the parties to adduce their evidence. 3. Claimant examined himself as PW-1 and Dr. SC Sharma as PW-2. The insurance company did not examine any witness but cross examined the witnesses of the claimant thoroughly. After considering the evidence available on records, the WC Commissioner arrived at the findings that claimant had sustained 35 % permanent and partial disability resulting in 35% loss of earning capacity and thereupon made assessment of compensation under Section 4(i) © (ii) of the Act. The WC Commissioner directed the insurance company to make payment of Rs., 1,02,186/- within 30 days along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accident till realization. This judgment and award dated 28.2.2006 has been brought under challenge in the present appeal. 4. When the matter has been called up for hearing today, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents although name of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has been clearly shown in the Cause List. Accordingly, the appeal is taken up exparte against the respondents. I have heard Mr. SK Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. 5. This court while admitting the appeal on 21.11.2008 framed the following three substantial questions of law : (i) Whether the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation can assess compensation under Section 4(1) © of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 when disability of the claimant/workman is admittedly temporary in nature? (ii) Whether the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation can assess wage without deducting any amount towards allowances when admittedly claimant/workman was receiving Rs.2,500/- as monthly wages including all ? (iii) Whether the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation can award interest on the award from the date of the accident ? 6. The first substantial question of law framed by this court is based on the presumption that whether the disability suffered by the workman is temporary in nature. To understand as to whether such presumption of fact does exist, I have heard Mr. SK Goswami and perused the LCR. 7. PW-1, claimant specifically stated in course of his deposition that he has been rendered permanent and partial disablement to the extent of 35 % for which he has been deprived from his occupation. He claimed that he has been living on hand to mouth and is not in a position to make any earning. 7. PW-1, claimant specifically stated in course of his deposition that he has been rendered permanent and partial disablement to the extent of 35 % for which he has been deprived from his occupation. He claimed that he has been living on hand to mouth and is not in a position to make any earning. PW-2, Doctor stated that physical disability of the workman is 35% and is permanent in nature. In course of cross examination, he stated that the loss of earning capacity is partial but he has not stated anywhere that disability is temporary in nature. Having gone through the deposition of PW-1 and 2 in addition to the claim petition, I do not find any admission anywhere to the effect that the disability suffered by the workman was temporary in nature. This being the position, the first substantial question of law cannot arise from the fact and circumstances of the case and accordingly it deserve any adjudication. 8. The second substantial question of law is based on the supposition that daily allowance cannot be considered for the purpose of deciding the quantum of monthly salary of a workman. This question came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ameeruddin & anr. –vs- United India Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 304 whereupon the Apex Court held that daily allowance regularly paid to the workman would be a part of the monthly wage and so the learned WC Commissioner has not committed any mistake in accepting the monthly wage of the workman in the present case at Rs.2500/- including daily wage. The second substantial question of law, therefore, is decided in favour of the workman and against the appellant in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The only substantial question of law that survives in the present case is the substantial question of law No.3. It is in regard to power of the WC Commissioner to award interest on the awarded amount. Section 4(a) of the Act provides that compensation under Section-4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. The statute nowhere states when does compensation fall due. The due date for compensation may vary from case to case. It is in regard to power of the WC Commissioner to award interest on the awarded amount. Section 4(a) of the Act provides that compensation under Section-4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. The statute nowhere states when does compensation fall due. The due date for compensation may vary from case to case. In the case of death of workman in course of employment or in case of scheduled permanent disability, the due date for payment of compensation may be the date of accident itself. . This is because employer and for that the insurance company must be aware of the quantum of compensation to be paid to the workman. In case of death, compensation is paid under Section 4(1) (a) of the Act and in case of scheduled injury, the loss of earning capacity is prescribed under the statute in the schedule. The employer and for that the insurance company, however, cannot determine the quantum of compensation in case of non scheduled injury because in that event it is the assessment made by the Commissioner on the basis of opinion of the qualified medical practitioner and so until and unless such assessment is made by the jurisdictional authority, the employer cannot understand as to what compensation should be paid to the workman. In such event, the compensation must be paid only after adjudication is made. Thus, in case of non-scheduled injury, the due date for compensation will be within the period of one month from the date of adjudication in terms of Section 4(a) (ii) of the Act. Unless and until the adjudication is made, the employer cannot make payment of compensation and so under Section 4(A) (3), it is provided that if the payment is not made within a period of 30 days, then the WC Commissioner shall direct for payment of simple interest @ 12% per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum lending rate of scheduled bank. Here in this case the injury involved is a non-scheduled one and so Commissioner committed error in granting interest even on the date of adjudication itself. Accordingly, the third substantial question of law is decided in favor of the appellant. The appeal is partially allowed. Here in this case the injury involved is a non-scheduled one and so Commissioner committed error in granting interest even on the date of adjudication itself. Accordingly, the third substantial question of law is decided in favor of the appellant. The appeal is partially allowed. The amount of compensation which has not been released shall be released forthwith by the learned WC Commissioner to the workman and the insurance company shall not be liable to make any further interest to the claimant. Interim order passed earlier shall automatically stands vacated.