Nishitendu Chaudhury, J. 1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.09.2003 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Zone-III, Tezpur in W.C. Case No. 124 of 2000. By that award a sum of Rs. 2,16,910/- was allowed as compensation to be paid by the Insurance Company with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants and same was calculated at Rs. 85,959.33 The total compensation amount was, therefore, assessed as Rs. 3,50,056/-. The victim was a handyman of a Bus No. AS-25/5841. On 21.04.1999 on its way from Tezpur towards Siliguri some miscreants stopped the bus at 4 P.M. near Chapar police station and opened fire. The ill-fated handyman died on the spot. FIR was lodged with Chapor Police station Case No. 39 of 1999. The father and mother of the handyman as claimants lodged the claim petition before the jurisdictional Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Tezpur, stating that monthly salary of the victim was Rs. 1,000/- per month excluding food and clothing. He was the only bread earner of the family and his age was 25 years as on the date of incident. He claimed that Rs. 3,50,056/- be paid to them towards compensation amount. On being summoned the opposite party No. 1 owner of the vehicle appeared and submitted written statement. Challenging the statement, the Opposite party No. 2, Oriental Insurance Company also submitted written statement. It is admitted that appellant herein (opposite Parry No. 2 in the claim case) had policy cover of the ill-fated vehicle and so the Insurance Company is liable to make payment of the compensation awardable against the owner. Although, the owner claimed that a sum of Rs. 800/- was being paid to the handyman towards salary but the father of the victim examined himself and claimed that the monthly salary of his deceased son was to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- in addition to food and clothing. The learned Commissioner after consideration of all the materials available on record passed the judgment and award on 16.09.2003 holding that monthly wage of the victim was Rs. 2,000/-. Thereupon, the compensation was assessed at Rs. 1000 X 216.91 = Rs. 2,16,910/- with interest 9% per annum. It is this judgment which has been brought under challenge in the present appeal. 2. I have heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. 2,000/-. Thereupon, the compensation was assessed at Rs. 1000 X 216.91 = Rs. 2,16,910/- with interest 9% per annum. It is this judgment which has been brought under challenge in the present appeal. 2. I have heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the opposite parties. It appears that at the time of admission hearing of this appeal on 14.09.2004 no substantial question of law was framed as required under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, the following substantial question of law is accordingly framed: Whether the finding of the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Tezpur, presuming the monthly wage of workman to be Rs. 2,000/- per month is perverse? 3. The appeal is heard. I have perused pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties. 4. It appears that in the claim petition the income of the victim was stated to be Rs. 1000/- per month. In the same breadth Kanta Ram Bhuyan the father of the victim in course of his deposition stated that monthly wage of his son was Rs. 1,000/- in addition to food and clothing. However, according to the owner the monthly salary was only Rs. 800/-. 5. Be that as it may, considering the pleadings and the evidence of the claimant and more particularly in view of lack of his cross-examination on the quantum, this Court feels that there is material to hold that victim was drawing monthly wage of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Therefore, the finding of the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner that the income was Rs. 2,000/- per month is devoid of any substance. This finding is held to be perverse. Once it is found that the monthly wage of the workman was Rs. 1,000/- and the factor is 216.91, the recalculated amount will become Rs. 500 X 216.91 = Rs. 1,08,455/-. The 9% interest amount allowed by the Compensation Commissioner appears to be too low which is accordingly increased to 12% per annum. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that immediately after passing of the award the entire amount was deposited on 15.03.2003 before the learned Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Tezpur. The interest shall be calculated with effect from the date of accident i.e. 21.04.1999 till the date of deposition i.e. 15.03.2004. This amount would be Rs. 65,073/-. This amount coupled with the principal amount would be Rs. 1,73,528/-. The interest shall be calculated with effect from the date of accident i.e. 21.04.1999 till the date of deposition i.e. 15.03.2004. This amount would be Rs. 65,073/-. This amount coupled with the principal amount would be Rs. 1,73,528/-. It is stated that the claimants have already withdrawn Rs. 1,08,000/- from the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Tezpur. The remaining amount of Rs. 65,528/- shall be released to the claimants forthwith and the balance amount shall be returned to the appellant, Insurance Company. 6. With the above directions this appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.