By order dated 6.2.2015 service on respondent No. 2 was accepted and appellant was permitted to take step for service of notice on respondent No. 1 by substituted manner by publishing the notice in a local daily newspaper having wide circulation. Submitting an affidavit on 24.3.2015, the appellant has annexed Dainik Asom newspaper dated 27.2.2015 to show that notice on respondent No. 1 was duly published in the newspaper. That being the position, the service on respondent No.1 stands accepted. Case is ready regarding service. 2. Although records have not yet been received, reminder has been sent on 24.4.2015, time and again. Since the appeal is of the year 2001 and the nature of the substantial question of law framed by this court at the time of admission shows that it can be decided in the absence of records and on the basis of the materials available to the court, the matter is taken up for disposal today. On 11.1.2002 at the time of admission of the appeal, the Division Bench of this court framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether Amending Act 46 of 2000 could be given retrospective effect to the accident which took place prior to the said amendment ?” 3. I have heard Mr. S Dutta(Jr.) learned counsel for the appellant. No one has put up appearance on behalf of any of the respondents. 4. The present appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act has been preferred by the insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the WC Commissioner in NWC Case No.117 of 2000 by judgment and award dated 11.9.2001. 5. One Sabiran Khatun,wife of deceased Nur Mahammad filed a claim petition before the WC Commissioner, Nagaon stating that her husband was a driver of vehicle No. AS-02/0342 belonging to one Jongilal Das(Opposite party No. 1) at monthly salary of Rs.3000/- . On 11.7.2000 at about 4.25 am while the deceased was driving the vehicle from Tinsukia to Nagaon loaded with coal, the vehicle met with an accident near Juhakhat Tiniali on NH -37 under Teok Police Station and sustained grievous injury. He was moved to Jorhat Civil Hospital where he succumbed to his injury at around 12 noon on the same day. Teok Police Station registered Case No. 75 of 2000 under Section 279/301(A)/338/337/427/F-5925 with respect to the accident and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. 6. He was moved to Jorhat Civil Hospital where he succumbed to his injury at around 12 noon on the same day. Teok Police Station registered Case No. 75 of 2000 under Section 279/301(A)/338/337/427/F-5925 with respect to the accident and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. 6. On being notified, both the opposite parties appeared and submitted written statement wherein the opposite party No.1 admitted the fact as to employment of the deceased under him as well as the quantum of salary and the factum of the accident. The owner disclosed that the vehicle was covered by valid insurance policy under opposite party No. 2 vide policy No. 3153070118185 . The opposite party No.2 by filing written statement denied all averments made in the claim petition and alleged that it does not have any liability or responsibility to make payment of compensation. Faced with such rival contention of the parties, the WC Commissioner put the parties to prove their respective case by adducing evidence. 7. Claimant petitioner examined herself and adduced accident information report as well as the post mortem examination to prove that the victim had died on the fateful day because of the motor accident. It came out from the evidence of the claimant that the victim was driving the vehicle in course of his employment and he met with accident leading to his death. The WC Commissioner having arrived at the finding that there was employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the opposite party No.1 and that the deceased died in a motor accident during the course of his employment, passed judgment and award under Section -4 (1) (a) of the E.C.Act by accepting Rs.4000/- as monthly wage and 30 years as the age of the deceased. Compensation of Rs.4,15,960/- was granted at the following calculation: 50% of Rs.4000/- x 207.98= RS. 4,15,960/- -. In addition to this amount, another sum of Rs.4,000/- was allowed towards funeral cost which amounts to Rs.4,19,960/-. It is also ordered that the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 11.8.2000 that is the date of expiry of one month from the date of death. 8. 4,15,960/- -. In addition to this amount, another sum of Rs.4,000/- was allowed towards funeral cost which amounts to Rs.4,19,960/-. It is also ordered that the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 11.8.2000 that is the date of expiry of one month from the date of death. 8. WC Commissioner directed the insurance company to make payment of the amount within a period of 30 days and the insurance company was directed to deposit the whole amount within 30 days from the date of the order. The insurance company made the deposit of the whole amount and thereafter preferred this appeal on the ground that the accident had taken place on 11.7.2000 when the workmen's compensation (Amending Act 46 of 2000) had not been enacted. On the date of the accident , 1995 Amending Act was in force which meant that the maximum monthly wage of a workman would have been Rs.2000/-. By Amending Act 46 of 2000, this amount has been enhanced to Rs.4000/-. Since the adjudication was made on 11.9.2001, the learned WC Commissioner was of the view that the Amending Act 46 of 2000 might have been in force and that is why the monthly wage of the workman was deemed to be Rs.4000/-. According to the insurance company such retrospective application of Act of 46 of 2000 was not permissible. This court, therefore, at the time of admission of the appeal framed the above mentioned substantial question of law. Today when the matter has been taken up for hearing , Mr. S Dutta(Jr), learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record a judgment of the Hon'ble Suprme Court in the case of Kerala State electricity Board -vs- Valsala K & anr. reported in (1999) 8 SCC 254 . In this judgment passed by a Bench of three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme court considered the earlier Judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd -vs- VK Neelakandan and held that the law laid done under the said reported judgment was not correct in view of the fact that the earlier larger bench Judgment in the Pratap Narain Singh Deo -vs- Srininbas Sabata reported in (1976) 1 SCC 289 was not taken into consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board -vs- Valsala K & anr. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board -vs- Valsala K & anr. (supra) that workman become entitled to compensation the moment he suffered personal injury of the type contemplated by the provision of the Act and it is the amount of compensation payable on the date of the accident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, upheld the view taken by a Full Bench in the case of United India Insurance Company -vs- Alavi reported in (1998) 1 KLT 951 . The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court clearly answers the substantial question of law framed by this court and in view of law laid down in the Kerala State Electricity Board (supra) the sole substantial question of law is decided in favour of the appellant holding that the amendment Act of 46 of 2000 shall not have any retrospective effect to the accident which had taken place prior to commencement of Act of 46 of 2000. The amount of compensation cannot be calculated by applying the amending Act. The law in force at the time of the accident shall be applicable in case in hand. Having so found, the judgment and award stands modified. 9. The finding of the WC Commissioner in regard to age of the deceased not having been interfered with, the factor 207.98 remains unaffected. The calculation of the compensation will be as follows:- 50% of Rs.2000X 207.98= Rs.2,07,980/-. The amount of Rs.4000/- allowed by the WC Commissioner as funeral expenses is not interfered with. The compensation amount therefore stands modified to Rs.2,07,980/- + Rs.4,000/- =Rs. 2, 11, 980/- The aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 11.8.2000 that is the date of expiry of one month from the date of death. 10. At this stage, it is submitted by Mr. Dutta that as per the order of the court claimant/respondent No.1 was allowed to withdraw the sum of Rs.2,80,000/- from the jurisdictional WC Commissioner. The respondent No.1 shall be entitled to withdraw Rs.2,08,000/- if not already withdrawn. 11. Appeal stands allowed. No order as to cost.