JUDGMENT V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant, against the award, dated 09.08.2010, made in W.C. No. 261 of 2008, on the file of Workmen Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai. The appellant Insurance Company is the second respondent, whereas the respondents 1 to 7 are petitioners/claimants and the eighth respondent is the first respondent in W.C. No. 261 of 2008, on the file of Workmen Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai. 2. The respondents 1 to 7 filed W.C. No. 261 of 2008, claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as compensation, for the death of the husband of the first respondent and father of the respondents 2 to 5 and son of the respondents 6 and 7. 3. According to the respondents 1 to 7, the deceased K. Moorthy was employed as Mason from 01.05.2008 with the eighth respondent, for construction of Mirinda Godown. On 17.06.2008, at 5.30 p.m., when the deceased and one Muthusamy, Co-worker, went to take bath in the Tank, situated within the premises of the eighth respondent, the deceased got an electric shock, when he touched the electric switch to switch on the motor. He died, while he was taken to Hospital. The deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month and the respondents 1 to 7 are the legal heirs of the deceased and dependants on the earnings of the deceased. He died during and in the course of employment with the eighth respondent. The appellant is the insurer of the eighth respondent. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 7 filed W.C. No. 261 of 2008, claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as compensation from the appellant and the eighth respondent, as both of them are jointly liable to pay compensation. 4. The eighth respondent in the counter, admitted that the deceased was employed by them as Mason and he was paid Rs. 120/- per day. The eighth respondent further stated that the working hours was only upto 5 p.m. and the deceased died after the working hours and hence, they denied their liability to pay compensation. 5. The appellant denied that the deceased was working with the eighth respondent and he died during and in the course of employment. The deceased was not employed by the eighth respondent. He was engaged only by one Balu @ Murugamani. 5. The appellant denied that the deceased was working with the eighth respondent and he died during and in the course of employment. The deceased was not employed by the eighth respondent. He was engaged only by one Balu @ Murugamani. The said Balu @ Murugamani was not impleaded as necessary party. The respondents 1 to 7 can claim compensation only against the said Balu @ Murugamani, and prayed for dismissal of W.C. 6. Before the Commissioner for Workmen and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, on behalf of the claimants, the first respondent was examined as P.W. 1 and one Muthusamy, Co-worker of the deceased was examined as P.W. 2 and marked seven documents as Exs. P1 to P7. On behalf of the eighth respondent and the appellant, one R. Madasamy, Investigating Officer, National Insurance Co. Ltd. was examined as R.W. 1 and M. Arumugam, Assistant Manager of National Insurance Co. Ltd. was examined as R.W. 2 and marked three documents as Exs. R1 to R3. 7. The learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, framed necessary points for consideration. The learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, considering the pleadings and evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased died during and in the course of his employment. The policy issued by the appellant to the eighth respondent was in force on the date of accident and therefore, the appellant was held liable to pay compensation. Based on these findings, the Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,14,400/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 7 and directed the appellant to pay the said amount with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident, till the date of deposit. 8. Against the said order, dated 09.08.2010, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 9. At the time of admission, no substantial question of law has been framed. The learned counsel for the appellant raised the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the finding of the Commissioner that the deceased died in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, is sustainable in law? (b) Whether the Commissioner is justified in holding that the deceased died in the course of employment when the deceased died after completion of his employment? (b) Whether the Commissioner is justified in holding that the deceased died in the course of employment when the deceased died after completion of his employment? (c) Whether the default interest is payable from the date of accident or from the date of award? 10. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased did not die during and in the course of employment. He further contended that the learned Commissioner failed to note that the deceased was electrocuted, while he was taking bath after the working hours. He also contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner, is excessive and prayed for allowing the civil miscellaneous appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7 contended that the respondents 1 to 7 have proved by cogent evidence that the deceased was employed by the eighth respondent and died during and in the course of his employment. The compensation awarded is just compensation, as per the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act. No substantial question of law has arisen for consideration by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the civil miscellaneous appeal. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record. 13. The respondents 1 to 7 have stated that the deceased was employed by the eighth respondent as Mason and died during and in the course of his employment. The eighth respondent admitted that the deceased was employed by them as Mason. The first respondent as P.W. 1, and Muthusamy, a Co-worker, as P.W. 2 have deposed that the deceased and other workers stayed in the premises of the eighth respondent and were constructing Mirinda Godown. They also deposed that only on Sundays, the workers will leave the premises in the morning to go and meet the family and return in the evening itself. P.W. 2, Muthusamy, a Co-worker, deposed that from 9 a.m. to Sunset they will work and sometimes, they will work in the night time by fixing light. He also deposed that construction materials will come during night hours and they would unload the construction materials. Neither the appellant nor the eighth respondent let in any contra evidence. In the circumstances, the finding of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour that the accident took place during and in the course of employment, is well founded, on sound reasoning. 14. Neither the appellant nor the eighth respondent let in any contra evidence. In the circumstances, the finding of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour that the accident took place during and in the course of employment, is well founded, on sound reasoning. 14. The respondents 1 to 7 did not produce any evidence to substantiate their claim that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. The eighth respondent has stated that he paid Rs. 120/- per day to the deceased. No document was produced to that effect. In the circumstances, the learned Commissioner rightly applied the minimum wages, as fixed in G.O. No. 47, Labour and Employment Department, dated 01.08.2003, and fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,227/-. Applying the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act, the learned Commissioner fixed the maximum wages at Rs. 4,000/-, which the deceased is entitled to. The learned Commissioner applied the formula as per the Employees Compensation Act and arrived at Rs. 4,11,900/- towards loss of income and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 4,14,400/-, which is not excessive. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation is not correct in awarding default interest from the date of accident. As per Section 4A(3) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, the Commissioner has power to award interest only if default is committed after the order of Deputy Commissioner. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is unsustainable. The compensation is payable from the date of accident. As the compensation is payable from the date of accident, interest is also payable from that date. The question as to whether the interest is payable from the date of accident or from the date of order of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, is no longer res-integra. This issue was decided in the Judgment The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Siby George and Others, (2012) 12 SCC 540 , wherein at paragraphs 11 to 13, it has been held as follows: "11. The decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo was a Four-Judge Bench and in Valsala by a Three-Judge Bench of this Court. Both the decisions were, thus, fully binding on the Court in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir, each of which was heard by Two Judges. The decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo was a Four-Judge Bench and in Valsala by a Three-Judge Bench of this Court. Both the decisions were, thus, fully binding on the Court in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir, each of which was heard by Two Judges. But the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala were not brought to the notice of this Court in the two later decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir. 12. In light of the decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala, it is not open to contend that the payment of compensation would fall due only after the Commissioner's order or with reference to the date on which the claim application is made. The decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir insofar as they took a contrary view to the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala do not express the correct view and do not make binding precedents. 13. In light of the discussion made above, we find no merit in the Appeal and it is dismissed with costs amounting to Rs. 20,000/-. The amount of cost must be paid to the respondents within six weeks from today." This Judgment was referred to with approval by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 298 . After extracting the above referred paragraphs, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in paragraph 12, held as follows: "12. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, the Appeal is allowed and the Judgment and Order of the High Court is set aside. The Appellants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the accident." In view of the fact that the compensation and interest are payable from the date of accident, there is no infirmity in the impugned order of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. 16. For the reasons stated above, the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.