JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. This Misc. Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has been filed against the award dated 31.01.2011 passed by Commissioner, Workman Compensation Act, 1923, Bundi in Case No. WCC/NF/94/2009 whereby an award of Rs. 2,71,656/- has been passed in favour of claimant respondent with interest at the rate of 12 % p.a. from the date of accident. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-claimant filed a claim petition under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation on account of injuries which the claimant sustained on 18.06.2008 while he was employed as a Khalasi on the truck bearing No. HR38-W-1777 owned by respondent no.2. On 18.06.2008, he was going from Gudgaon to Mumbai with the truck loaded with goods, the truck stopped with a jerk at J.N.P.T Panwal near Navi Mumbai and as per the direction of the driver when he opened the battery, it fell on his legs due to which both his legs were seriously injured rendering him disabled causing permanent disability upto 37.81%. After hearing counsel for the parties, Commissioner awarded compensation as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Commissioner erred in deciding the issue no.2 in favour of the claimant without any evidence on record to prove that the deceased was employed with the non-claimant-respondent No.2 and suffered 37.81% permanent disability which caused 50 % loss of earning capacity without examining the doctor in evidence. She has further argued that Commissioner has illegally held liable the appellant to pay the interest on the awarded amount from the date of accident. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant argued that it is not in dispute that claimant was working as khalasi on the truck under the employment of respondent no. 2 and sustained 37.81% disability and taking into consideration all the injuries and loss of earning capacity, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has rightly come to the conclusion that loss of earning capacity shall be to the extent of 50%. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material placed before me. 6. In the case of Hukum Singh v. Deepak Agrawal & Anr. (S.B. Civil Misc. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material placed before me. 6. In the case of Hukum Singh v. Deepak Agrawal & Anr. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2215/2005) decided on 08.09.2016, this court has observed as under: "I am of the considered view that the WCC misdirected himself in treating the appellant's functional disability at 40 per cent on the basis of the medical certificate of 40% physical disability issued on 26.07.2002 by a duly constituted Medical Board. For the purpose of compensation, functional disability of the claimant resulting from the nature of the injury has to be considered with reference to the job/work being discharged by the claimants at the time of the accident. In the instant case the appellant was admittedly working as a driver of a heavy vehicle at the time of the accident and having lost the right leg below 6 the knee to amputation in the accident on 04.01.2002 the WCC ought to have taken the claimant as suffering 100% functional disability and not reduced the compensation determined under Section 4 of the Act of 1929 prorata with reference to the percentage of the overall physical disability." 7. At the time of accident, claimant was working as khalasi and disability certificate Ex.1 has been issued by the medical board in which it has specifically been mentioned that the claimant has difficulty in squatting, leaning and walking/running of movement. Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner has passed the impugned award on analyzing the material before the Commissioner. 8. In the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt.Kesi & Ors. reported in 2017 (2) RAR 549, this court has held as under: "The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that that the interest on the amount compensation could not be directed to be paid from the date of accident but it was payable from the date of application filed before the Workmen's compensation commissioner. The issue in this regard is settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas V. Premier Insurance Co. The issue in this regard is settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas V. Premier Insurance Co. Ltd reported in AIR 1982 SC 836 in which it has been held as under :- "Thus obviously, it is the date of accident which is the relevant date giving rise to cause of action on which date the compensation falls due and date of adjudication is a fortuitous circumstance depending upon litigatory process and same cannot deprive the claim of the interest, which is the part of the compensation, which falls due on the date of accident itself. The later decision in the cases of Mubasir (4 of 4) [CMA-589/2008] Ahmed and Kamla Chaturvedi (supra) rendered by the Two Judges Bench of Apex Court obviously ignored the relevant part of statutory provision and the binding precedents including one by the Constitution Bench and therefore, have to be held per-in curium to that extent, and they cannot lend any assistance to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company. Learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was justified in directing the payment of compensation from the date of accident itself." 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh v. National Insurance Company and Ors., in Civil Appeal 8/2014 decided on 2/1/2014 wherein it has been held as under: "We have perused the aforesaid judgment. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. This Court considered the earlier judgment relied upon by the High Court and observed that the judgments in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed [ (2007) 2 SCC 349 ] and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [ (2009) 6 SCC 280 ] were per incuriam having been rendered without considering the earlier decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata (1976) 1 SCC 289 . In the aforesaid judgment, upon consideration of the entire matter, a four-judge Bench of this Court had held that the compensation has to be paid from the date of the accident. ......... 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. In the aforesaid judgment, upon consideration of the entire matter, a four-judge Bench of this Court had held that the compensation has to be paid from the date of the accident. ......... 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 " 10. The High Court exercises a limited jurisdiction while exercising the jurisdiction under section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act in relation to finding of fact. Ordinarily, unless there exists a sufficient and cogent reasons, the finding of fact arrived at by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner are prohibited to be interfered with. 11. In view of the above, this court is of the view that there is no manifest error in the impugned judgment/award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and the Commissioner has rightly awarded the compensation along with reasonable rate of interest from the date of accident. 12. Appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.