JUDGMENT : MFA is filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. Cross objection is filed by the employer of the workman, challenging the interest portion of the award. 2. As both the appeal and cross objection have arisen out of a common judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, they are heard together and disposed of finally by this common judgment. Perused the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. 3. Substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in the appeal and cross objection are : (i) Whether the Commissioner was justified in assessing the wages of the claimant at Rs.100/- per day and directing the appellant – insurer to pay the compensation awarded, having regard to the fact that employer had declared the wages of the claimant at Rs.539.58/- at the time of obtaining the policy ? (ii) Whether interest awarded is in accordance with the provisions of the Act ? 4. Smt. Anandita Srinivasan, for Sri. C.M. Poonacha for Lex Plexus submits, the employer having obtained the insurance policy for ten workers showing their wages together as Rs.64,750/-, according to which wages of each employee would be Rs.593.58/- per month, the liability of the insurer will be to the extent of the wages for which the policy was obtained. The Commissioner without considering this has committed an error in fastening liability on the insurer to pay the entire award amount to the claimant. 5. Learned Counsel for the claimant submits, claimant has been working as a permanent employee in the estate of the owner on monthly wages of Rs.100/- per day. Considering the same, the Commissioner was justified in assessing his income at Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month and awarding compensation. As such, the said finding of the Commissioner does not call for interference and he prays for dismissing the appeal of the insurer. He further submits, the Commissioner has committed an error in awarding interest at 12% p.a. from the date of award instead of from 30 days after the accident. 6. Sri. K.S.Ganesha, learned Counsel for the cross objector (employer) submits, the Commissioner has committed an error in awarding interest from the date of accident instead of from 30 days after the award. 6. Sri. K.S.Ganesha, learned Counsel for the cross objector (employer) submits, the Commissioner has committed an error in awarding interest from the date of accident instead of from 30 days after the award. Therefore, he prays for allowing the cross objection filed by the employer. 7. The first respondent (worker) on 19-01-2004 while working as a coolie in the coffee estate of the second respondent sustained injuries to his spine due to fall of a branch of a tree on him and therefore, he filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Chickmagalur sub-division, seeking compensation from his employer and the insurer under Sec.22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Commissioner after conducting trial and hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties has awarded compensation of Rs.76,244/- and directed the insurer to pay the said sum within 30 days from the date of the award and in the event of failing to pay the award amount within 30 days, to pay the same with interest at 12% p.a. and directed the employer to pay the total interest of Rs.57,386/- from 19-02-2004 (date of accident) upto the date of the award. 8. The grievance of the insurer is, second respondent had obtained the insurance policy from the appellant in respect of ten employees showing their wages together at Rs.64,750/-. There is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the insurer, that the liability of the insurer is proportionate to wages of the workers as shown in the policy. Though the employer has shown the wages of ten employees together at Rs.64,750/- as per Ex.R.2, whereas in the check roll of labourers which was produced and marked as R.1B, wages of first respondent was shown as Rs.800/- per month. In fact, it is stated so in the appeal memorandum. Relevant factor applicable to the age group of the claimant would be 211.79. Doctor has stated, claimant has suffered disability of 20% to whole body. If so, liability of the insurer would come to Rs.20,331.84/- (Rs.800/-x 60 x 211.79 x 20/100). 9. Though employer has stated in his statement of objections filed before the Commissioner that he was paying wages at Rs.64.75/- per day, but has not substantiated the said contention by producing any document. Therefore, owner has to pay the balance of award amount of Rs.55,912.16/-. 10. 9. Though employer has stated in his statement of objections filed before the Commissioner that he was paying wages at Rs.64.75/- per day, but has not substantiated the said contention by producing any document. Therefore, owner has to pay the balance of award amount of Rs.55,912.16/-. 10. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sibi George reported in 2012 ACJ pg. 2126, interest has to be awarded at 12% p.a. from 30 days after the award. 11. Hence, both the appeal and cross objection are allowed in part. Judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is modified to the extent stated herein above. Appellant – insurer is liable to pay Rs.20,331.84/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 30 days after the award to the claimant. The employer of the workman – the second respondent herein, shall pay balance award amount amounting to Rs.55,912.16/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 30 days after the award till the date of payment and shall pay within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount, if any, already paid or deposited. Amount deposited in the above appeal and cross objection is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Senior Civil Judge, Chickmagalur. The Senior Civil Judge after releasing the amount payable to the claimant as indicated herein above, shall refund the excess amount, if any payable to the insurer as well as the owner as the case may be.