JUDGMENT : B.Veerappa, J. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. The insurance company filed the present miscellaneous first appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.11.2015 made in ECA.No.472/2014 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the MACT, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity) awarding total compensation of Rs.2,83,000/- with interest at 12% per annum after one month from the date of petition till realization. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 4. Respondent No.1 herein is the claimant who filed the petition under the provisions of Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him during the course of his employment, contending that he was working under respondent No.1 as driver and was earning Rs.10,500/- as monthly wages. On 14.11.2014, at about 5.00 a.m., the Car bearing No.KA-51-A-6819, which he was driving near Windsor Manor, met with accident with a Lorry bearing No.KA-01-8212. Due to the impact, the Car was badly damaged and claimant suffered grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to St.Philomens Hospital as he suffered fractures and wounds and he was operated. After treatment, once again he underwent surgery and grafting. After two surgeries and treatment also, the claimant has not been fully recovered from the injuries. He has suffered permanent disability. He spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and also taken treatment at St.Martha's Hospital. Therefore, he sought to allow the petition. 5. The respondents filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and the injuries sustained by the claimant so also the policy issued was not in force as on the date of the accident. They also denied the fact that the claimant was working under respondent No.1 and sustained injuries in the course of the employment. There is no master and servant relationship between them and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: "1. Whether Applicant proves he was working as driver with Respondent No.1 as on date of alleged incident, on 14.11.2014 at about 5.00 a.m.? 2. Whether Applicant proves he suffered injuries during the course of employment or injury related to the employment? 3. 6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: "1. Whether Applicant proves he was working as driver with Respondent No.1 as on date of alleged incident, on 14.11.2014 at about 5.00 a.m.? 2. Whether Applicant proves he suffered injuries during the course of employment or injury related to the employment? 3. Whether Applicant is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 4. What order?" 7. In order to establish the case, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and three other witnesses namely, two Medical Record Officers and the doctor, who treated him as PWs.2 and 3 respectively and also got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.18. 8. The respondent No.2 have not adduced any evidence nor produced any documents. 9. The Tribunal after considering the entire material on record has recorded the finding that the claimant has proved that he was working under first respondent as driver as on the date of the accident, he has suffered injuries during the course of the employment and is entitled for compensation accordingly. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order dated 13.11.2015, has awarded total compensation of Rs.2,83,000/- with 12% interest per annum after one month from the date of the petition till realization. Hence, the insurance company filed the present appeal for reduction of the compensation. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 11. Sri Janardhana Reddy, learned counsel for Sri B. Pradeep, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal taking the monthly wages of the claimant at Rs.10,500/-, is contrary to the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'E.C.Act' for brevity) and the notification issued by the Government dated 31.05.2010, fixing the monthly wages at Rs.8,000/-. He would further contend that the Tribunal has erred in calculating the award amount as per the provisions of the E.C.Act. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal. 12. He would further contend that the Tribunal has erred in calculating the award amount as per the provisions of the E.C.Act. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal. 12. Per contra, Sri Y.K.Sheshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the claimant sought to justify the impugned judgment and order and contended that Section 4(1) explanation II of the E.C.Act nevertheless stood as, 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 and subsequently Explanation II came to be omitted by Act 45 of 2009 with effect from 18.01.2010. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation on the basis of the Wage Register Extract issued by the employer as per Ex.P.9, which clearly depicts that the claimant was earning monthly wages of Rs.10,500/-. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in taking the monthly wages of Rs.10,500/-. He further contended that the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in first appeal No.98 of 2012, has proceeded to award compensation on the basis of the monthly wages of Rs.8,950/- as he was receiving salary from his employer. Out of the said monthly wages, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, after deducting half monthly wages of the deceased therein, multiplied the same with the relevant factor i.e., 153.09 as per Section 4(1)(a) of the E.C.Act and awarded the compensation. Therefore, he submits that the monthly wages of the claimant at Rs.10,500/- taken by the Tribunal is just and proper and this Court cannot interfere with the present appeal under the provisions of Section 30 of the E.C.Act, as the scope of area is very limited and therefore, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 13. This Court while admitting the appeal framed the following substantial questions for its consideration: "Whether the Tribunal is justified in taking the monthly wages of Rs.10,500/- of the petitioner, when the Central Government exercising the powers under Section 4(1)(b) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 fixed Rs.8,000/- with effect from 31.05.2010 in facts and circumstances of the present case? 14. This Court while admitting the appeal framed the following substantial questions for its consideration: "Whether the Tribunal is justified in taking the monthly wages of Rs.10,500/- of the petitioner, when the Central Government exercising the powers under Section 4(1)(b) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 fixed Rs.8,000/- with effect from 31.05.2010 in facts and circumstances of the present case? 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, it is undisputed fact that the claimant was working under respondent No.1 as driver and was driving the Car bearing registration No.KA-51-A-6819 and the accident occurred on 14.11.2014 at about 5.00 a.m., arising out of and during the course of his employment. It is the specific case of the respondent that his employer was paying Rs.10,500/- as monthly wages and he has produced material document Ex.P.9 - Wage Register Extract issued by the employer in this regard. It is also not in dispute that the accident occurred on 14.11.2014 as is evident from Exs.P.1 to P.6. Therefore, the claimant filed petition under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, claiming compensation. The Tribunal proceeded to record the finding that on going through the document Ex.P.9 Wage Register Extract discloses that the petitioner was working under respondent No.1 as on the date of the accident and the accident occurred during the course of the employment. Based on Ex.P.9, the Tribunal proceeded to take monthly wages of the claimant as Rs.10,500/-. 15. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 14.11.2014. Based on Ex.P.9, the Tribunal proceeded to take monthly wages of the claimant as Rs.10,500/-. 15. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 14.11.2014. As on the date of the accident, the amended provision i.e., Sub-section (1B) of Section 4 of the E.C.Act was in force and the Central Government specifies for the purposes of the Sub-section (1) of the said Section 4, Rs.8,000/- has to be taken as minimum wage per month for calculation and the notification reads thus: "MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 31st May, 2010 S.O. 1258 (E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1B) of Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), the Central Government hereby specifies, for the purposes of Sub-section (1) of the said Section, the following amount as monthly wages, with effect from the date of publication of this Notification in the Official Gazette, namely:- "Eight Thousand Rupees" Though the learned counsel for the claimant sought to justify the impugned judgment and order relying upon the earlier Explanation II of Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which reads thus: "Explanation II 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" Subsequently, Explanation II came to be omitted from 18.01.2010, the fact remains that the Central Government exercising powers, the provisions of Section 4(1-B) of the E.C.Act, issued notification in the Official Gazette specifying that for the purposes of sub-section (1), such monthly wages in relation to an employee as it may consider necessary, which is extracted above. 16. Though the learned counsel for the claimant relied on the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of Smt. Shantabai Vs. The Chairman, Vaidyanath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited in First Appeal No.98 of 2012, D.D. on 29.04.2019, wherein, the deceased was permanent employee under the respondent and used to draw monthly salary of Rs.8,950/- and was aged about 50 years. As per Section 4(1)(a) of the E.C.Act, half monthly wages of the deceased was taken and multiplied by the relevant factor i.e., 153.09 and proceeded to pass the judgment and award. In that case, the accident occurred on 09.12.2008 prior to the amended provision of Section 4(1-B) of E.C.Act. As per Section 4(1)(a) of the E.C.Act, half monthly wages of the deceased was taken and multiplied by the relevant factor i.e., 153.09 and proceeded to pass the judgment and award. In that case, the accident occurred on 09.12.2008 prior to the amended provision of Section 4(1-B) of E.C.Act. The said judgment has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. In view of the amendment of the provisions of Sub-section (1B) of Section 4 in fixing the monthly wages at Rs.8,000/-, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that this Court cannot interfere under Section 30 in the present appeal cannot be accepted, when the impugned judgment and order passed is erroneous and contrary to the law, as on the date of the accident and certainly, this Court can interfere and reassess the compensation. 18. However, as per the amended provision, Rs.8,000/- is taken as monthly wages of the claimant taking his age as 26 years and the relevant factor would be 215.28 as per the Schedule IV of the E.C.Act. Taking 60% of Rs.8,000/- and applying the factor 215.28, the loss of earning capacity would be Rs.93,000/- + Rs.79,560/- as already awarded by the Tribunal towards medical bills. 19. For the reasons stated above, the substantial question of law is answered in the negative holding that the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly wages of Rs.10,500/- of the claimant, in view of the provisions of Sub-section (1-B) of Section 4 of the E.C.Act. The monthly wages of the claimant would be Rs.8,000/-. 20. After re-assessing the entire material on record, the claimant is entitled for the compensation is as under: Loss of earning capacity Rs.93,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x 60% x 9% x 215.28) Medical expenses Rs.79,560/- Total Rs.1,72,560/- 21. In total, the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,72,560/- as against Rs.2,83,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum after the one month from the date of petition till realization. 22. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed-in-part. The impugned judgment and award dated 13.11.2015, in ECA.No.472 of 2014 is hereby modified and the claimant is entitled for 12% interest per annum after one month from the date of petition till realization.