JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment recorded by the learned Commissioner, Employees Workmen Compensation, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., while his exercising, powers, under the Employee’s Compensation Act. 2. In the impugned pronouncement, the learned Commissioner, had assessed compensation upon the claimants, who are evidently the successors-in-interest of deceased Ramesh Baitha, compensation whereof is comprised in a sum of Rs.16,50,175/- AND carries interest thereon with effect from 26.02.2009 i.e. the date of the accident involving the ill-fated accident, till its realization. The apposite liability with respect to its defrayment vis-à-vis the claimants, stood fastened upon the insurer/respondent No.2. This Court admits the appeal, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner under Employee Compensation Act is justify to calculate the amount of compensation for Rs.8,47,160/- by taking the income of deceased for Rs.8000/- per month especially when at the time of the accident occurred on 25.02.2009 the maximum wage of the workmen under Section 4 of the Workmen Compensation Act was Rs.4000/- and the substitution of such income from Rs.4000/- to Rs.8000/- per month was brought on statute w.e.f. 31.03.2010 and the Ld. Commissioner is not competent to invoke the amended provision retrospectively. 2. Whether the impugned order is liable to be set-aside/reduced as the same is in violation of the provisions of Section 4(1)(a), 4(4) of Employees Compensation Act/Workmen Compensation Act and the amount of compensation is required to be determined as under 50% of Rs.4000/-= 2000 x 211.79 =4,23,580? 3. Whether the learned Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act is competent of award the rate of interest on the amount of compensation from the date of the accident instead of 30 days after the accident when the amount has fallen due.? Substantial question No. 1, 2 and 3. 3. 3. Whether the learned Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act is competent of award the rate of interest on the amount of compensation from the date of the accident instead of 30 days after the accident when the amount has fallen due.? Substantial question No. 1, 2 and 3. 3. The solitary submission made by the counsel for the insurer, for, his concerting to beget reversal of the impugned pronouncement, is, with respect to the learned Commissioner, in stark discordance, with, the mandate of the relevant statutory principles, hence mis-assessing compensation amount upon the claimants, infractions whereof stand espoused, to be comprised, in (a) the learned Commissioner, though, not falling in error while taking Rs.4000/- per mensem as wages/salary drawn by the deceased, from, his employment under respondent No.2, (b) yet his falling into error, in applying upon the aforesaid figure of salary/wages per mensem, the relevant statutory principles, ‘whereas’ in face of prevalence, at the relevant time of occurrence of the ill-fated mishap, ‘of’ the mandate of explanation II to Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), explanation whereof stood subsequent thereto deleted, from the statute book, (c) rather hence enjoining the Commissioner, to mete reverence to the mandate occurring in explanation II to Section 4 of the Act, contents whereof stand extracted hereinafter, contrarily irreverence whereof by him, hence staining the impugned pronouncement. “Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed (four thousand rupees) his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be (four thousand rupees) only” 4. “Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed (four thousand rupees) his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be (four thousand rupees) only” 4. The counsel for the appellant/insurer submits, that the deceased workman, was, drawing wages/salary comprised in a sum of Rs.8000/- per mensem, to figure whereof, another sum, of Rs.300/- per day, is to be added, its comprising the daily allowance received by the deceased workman from his relevant employment, (i) hence the total sum of wages per mensem received by the deceased workman from his employer, while hence being comprised in a sum of Rs.8,000/-, in sequel thereof (ii) with the apposite explanation, holding force, at the relevant time of occurrence, of, the ill-fated mishap thereupon enjoined the commissioner to mete reverence thereto (iii) significantly with a statutory contemplation occurring therein, qua upon, per mensem wages of a deceased workman, evidently HENCE exceeding Rs.4000/-,(iv) as wages whereof, of the deceased in the instant case exceed Rs.4000/-, (v) thereupon, his monthly wages, for, the purposes of application thereon, of the relevant statutory principles, hence also attracting the mandate of clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, wherein, his wages were enjoined to be restricted in a sum of Rs.4000/- per mensem only. He submits that the aforesaid mandate of explanation II of the Act, has been irrevered by the learned commissioner. The aforesaid submission addressed before this Court, garners, immense strength, from, the evident fact, of applicability at the relevant time, of the mandate of the aforesaid explanation II of the Act, besides also obviously with the explanation aforesaid holding prevalence also clout at the time, when, the ill-fated mishap, hence occurred. In aftermath, the learned Commissioner, ‘was’, given the existence of formidable evidence, qua the deceased workman, drawing, from his relevant employment per mensem salary/wages, constituted, in a sum of Rs.8,000/- hence ‘enjoined’ by the mandate, of explanation II of the Act, to restrict the monthly wages of the deceased workman, in a sum of Rs.4000/- besides was enjoined to apply thereon, the mandate of clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Act However, he has omitted to do so. Consequently, the award of the learned Commissioner warrants interference. Consequently, the award of the learned Commissioner warrants interference. In aftermath while applying the principle(s) embedded in clause (a) of sub section (1), of Section 4 of the Act, provisions whereof stood extracted hereinafter:- 4. Amount of compensation.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:- (a) where death results from the injury An amount equal to fifty per cent of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor; Or An amount of eighty thousand rupees whichever is more: whereby only with respect to 50% of, the statutory wage(s) of the deceased employee, the enjoined statutory principle(s) hence warrant their application thereon,(i) consequently this Court concludes, that (i) the wages per mensem of the deceased workman by applying the relevant statutory principle(s), hence, being comprised in a sum of Rs.2000/- (ii) hence by applying the relevant statutory factor thereon i.e. 209.92, the compensation amount defrayable to the claimants is quantified in a sum of Rs.4,19,840/-. 5. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. Appeal modified to the extent aforesaid. The claimants are held entitled to compensation of Rs.4,19,840/-, from, the insurance company concerned, compensation amount whereof, shall carry thereon interest @ 12% per annum, since, the elapsing of one month from the accident, till its realization/deposit and also to funeral charges comprised in a sum of Rs.2000/-, from, the insurance company. No costs.