JUDGMENT : This appeal, under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.02.2012 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chamoli in W.C.A. No.07 of 2008-09 Smt. Chandrakala Devi vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company and others, whereby the claim petition has been allowed against the appellant for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,49,375/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1 filed a claim petition before Workmen Compensation Commissioner with the averments that complainant’s husband namely Yashwant Singh @ Jaswant Singh was employed as cleaner/conductor on the vehicle of respondent no.2, bearing registration no.UP 020 M3286. On 23.11.2008, he along with the driver of the truck (respondent no.3) was coming from Kotdwar to Gopeshwar. At Moswari near Gopeshwar Chamoli Motor Road, fuel of the truck got finished and the driver went to bring the fuel, leaving her husband at the spot with the truck. Due to heavy goods in the truck, it fell down into a gorge, which resulted death of her husband. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 40 years and was getting salary of Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs. 50/- per day towards food expenses from the employer. 3. The owner of the vehicle in question has filed a written statement admitting therein that the deceased was employed by him in the said vehicle. It has been admitted that the accident had taken place during the course of employment. The vehicle was insured with the Iffcco Tokio General Insurance and on the date of accident all the papers of the vehicle were valid and the driver was having valid driving licence. The insurance company is liable to indemnify the compensation. 4. The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. also filed its written statement and denied all the averments of the claim petition. In additional pleas, it has stated that the claim petition is not maintainable due to non-compliance of Section 10 of Workmen’s Compensation Act and Rule 20 Workmen’s Compensation Rules. 5. 4. The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. also filed its written statement and denied all the averments of the claim petition. In additional pleas, it has stated that the claim petition is not maintainable due to non-compliance of Section 10 of Workmen’s Compensation Act and Rule 20 Workmen’s Compensation Rules. 5. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner observed that P.W.D. Department has fixed rate of daily wages for unskilled worker as 150 per day, but the learned Commissioner fixed the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.4,000/-in view of Section 4 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 Amendment 2000, and accordingly, by judgment and award dated 29.02.2012, awarded an amount of Rs.4,49,375/- as compensation to the claimant. 6. Vide order dated 11.06.2012, this appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner was justified in treating the monthly salary of the deceased Yashwant Singh at Rs.4,000/-?” 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 8. From a perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it would reveal that the learned Commissioner has recorded a finding that in view of the fact that the P.W.D. Department has fixed the minimum wages of an unskilled labour @ Rs.150/- per day and thus if the same would be applied to the case of deceased then the compensation payable would be Rs.4,14,3282/-, but the learned Commissioner, as per Section 4 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (Amendment 2000), assessed the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.4,000/- per month, which means Rs.48,000/- per annum, and after applying the formula, as prescribed in the Act, on the age of the deceased, has calculated the compensation to the tune of Rs.4,49,375/-. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality in the calculation so made by the learned Commissioner. In my view also, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner. No interference is therefore called for. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.