JUDGMENT Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. - Though the appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsels, the matters are taken up for final disposal. MFA 31193/2013 is preferred against the judgment and award dated 21.02.2013 in WCA No.148/2011, MFA No.31192/2013 is preferred against the judgment and award in WCA No.147/2011 and MFA No.31194/2013 is preferred against the judgment and award in WCA No.149/2011 passed by the Labour Officer/Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (for short the 'Commissioner'), Raichur. 2. The rank of the parties are stated as referred before the learned Commissioner for convenience. 3. The brief facts of the case are that claimant in WCA No.147/2011 was driving a truck bearing Reg.No.TN-28/V-5722 and claimant in WCA No.148/2011 was spare driver and claimant in WCA No.149/2011 was cleaner in the said truck were under the employment of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is the insurer. All these claimants during the course of employment were proceeding in the lorry at night 10:00 p.m. on NH-13 and another lorry which came from opposite direction in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the lorry of the claimants, due to this claimants have sustained injuries and immediately they were shifted to the hospital and have been given treatment to them. 4. All the claimants have preferred petitions under the provisions of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and have lead evidence. Based on the both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Commissioner had awarded compensation of Rs.1,99,038/- to claimant in WCA No.147/2011 and a sum of Rs.2,51,904/- to claimant in WCA No.148/2011 and Rs.2,49,576/- to claimant in WCA No.149/2011 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of petition. 5. There was six years delay in preferring the petitions and it was contended before the learned Commissioner by respondent No.2/Insurance Company that there is inordinate delay in preferring these petitions. Therefore, petitions were liable to be dismissed. 6. But the learned Commissioner by relying on the principle of law laid down by this Court and by the Jharkhand and Punjab and Haryana High Courts had condoned the delay in preferring the petitions and accordingly awarded the compensation. Therefore, petitions were liable to be dismissed. 6. But the learned Commissioner by relying on the principle of law laid down by this Court and by the Jharkhand and Punjab and Haryana High Courts had condoned the delay in preferring the petitions and accordingly awarded the compensation. The learned Commissioner has taken into consideration income at Rs.5,000/- per month in respect of claimants in WCA No.147/2011 and WCA No.148/2011 and Rs.4,000/- per month in WCA No.149/2011 and taken percentage of disability at 35%, 40% and 50% respectively and accordingly awarded compensation. 7. Being aggrieved by the award of compensation the appellant/insurance company had preferred these appeals inter alia contending that there is a delay of six years in filing the petitions and which is not properly explained by the claimants. In this regard there is no reason assigned by the learned Commissioner. Therefore, submitted that petitions may be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Another ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the disability assessed and taken into consideration by the learned Commissioner is on the higher side and same is to be reduced and assessment of disability while computing compensation is quite excessive and exorbitant. Therefore submitted on this ground the appeals are liable to be allowed. The another ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that as per the provisions of Section 4 Explanation II of the Employee's Compensation Act (for short the 'Act') 1923 (before Amendment), monthly income of Rs.4,000/- is to be taken into consideration since the accident occurred prior to amendment made in the Act by omitting Explanation II. Therefore, the learned Commissioner has exceeded his power in taking into consideration monthly income at Rs.5,000/- in respect of claimants in WCA Nos.147/2011 and 148/2011. Therefore, on all these grounds the learned counsel for the appellants prays to modify the judgment and award. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants supported the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner and submitted that considering the injuries sustained the assessment made by the Doctor as well as percentage of disability taken by the learned Commissioner is proper and correct. Therefore, there is no need to interfere in respect of disability. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants supported the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner and submitted that considering the injuries sustained the assessment made by the Doctor as well as percentage of disability taken by the learned Commissioner is proper and correct. Therefore, there is no need to interfere in respect of disability. Further submitted income taken by the learned Commissioner is on the lower side, hence, there is no need to interfere with the monthly income taken by the learned Commissioner while quantifying the compensation. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeals. 9. Upon hearing the rival contentions, the substantial questions of law arise for consideration in these appeals are: 1. Whether the claim petitions are not maintainable on the ground that they have not preferred within the period of limitation? 2. Whether the percentage of disability held by the learned Commissioner is on the higher side considering the nature of injuries sustained as per medical evidence supported by the claimants and thus requires interference by this Court? 3. Whether the learned Commissioner taking monthly income of the claimants at Rs.5,000/- in WCA No.147/2011 and WCA No.148/2011 is contrary to the Section 4 Explanation II of the Act? 10. In the present case the accident was occurred on 28.07.2005 but the claim petitions were filed in the year 2011. Thus, there is a delay of six years in preferring the petitions. Therefore, it is contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that claim petitions are barred by limitation and there is no explanation about delay. Therefore submitted petitions are not maintainable and learned Commissioner ought to have rejected the petitions but erroneously allowed and granted compensation. 11. Upon considering these arguments, this Court has considered the legal aspect in this regard and reasoning assigned by the learned Commissioner by following the judgment of this Court in the case of Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. Vs. Hanumanthamma and others, (2003) ACJ 825 ; Ravi Namdev Kavale and another vs. Kittaswami and Others, (1998) ILR(Kar) 98 ; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvati Pramanik and others, (2011) ACJ 1585 ; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar and another, (2012) ACJ 2281 observed that whatever delay may be condoned upon accepting the reasons stated by the Claimants. 12. Ltd. Vs. Parvati Pramanik and others, (2011) ACJ 1585 ; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar and another, (2012) ACJ 2281 observed that whatever delay may be condoned upon accepting the reasons stated by the Claimants. 12. Therefore, upon considering the legal position as laid down by this Court and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the fact that the Act is social welfare legislature and just mere technicality of delay cannot be made hurdle in granting relief to the workman. Therefore, even though there is a delay that can be condoned since claimants have sustained injuries during the course of employment. Therefore, finding recorded by the learned Commissioner cannot be said to be perverse. Therefore, there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, in this regard even though there is delay in preferring the petitions but is liable to be condoned. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding given by the learned Commissioner. 13. The another submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that percentage of disability taken by the learned Commissioner is on the higher side considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimants. In respect of claimant in WCA No.147/2011 as per wound certificate he had sustained the following injuries: "malunited fracture of left patella with pain and tenderness over fracture site, wasting of muscles over thigh and the range of movements of knee joint are painful and restricted resulting the patient finds difficult to squat, cross legged, stand long, walk fast and unable to lift, carry weight and carrying the profession." 14. The Doctor had given evidence that due to the above said injuries sustained by the claimant he had sustained permanent disability to the tune of 30%- 35% and accordingly learned Commissioner has taken the disability at 35% and accordingly calculated and quantified the compensation. But upon considering the nature of injuries sustained as stated above and considering the nature of job of the claimant, the assessment of percentage of disability is on the higher side. Therefore, percentage of disability in respect of claimant in WCA No.147/2011 is taken at 25%. 15. But upon considering the nature of injuries sustained as stated above and considering the nature of job of the claimant, the assessment of percentage of disability is on the higher side. Therefore, percentage of disability in respect of claimant in WCA No.147/2011 is taken at 25%. 15. Further, another argument canvassed by the counsel for the appellant is that as per Section 4 Explanation II (before amendment) of the Act monthly income of the claimant ought to have been taken at Rs.4,000/-. But learned Commissioner has taken a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, it is in violation of Explanation II of Section 4 of the Act. This legal position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. As per Explanation II of Section 4 of the Act there is ceiling limit of income and to be taken into consideration at Rs.4,000/- per month. Therefore, income taken at Rs.5,000/- per month by the learned Commissioner while making assessment and granted compensation is on the higher side. In this regard, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, income of Rs.4,000/- per month is taken into consideration for making assessment of the compensation. The age of the claimant is 38 years as on the date of the accident and the relevant factor is 189.56. Thus, compensation amount is quantified as follows: Rs.2,400/- x 25% x 189.56 = Rs.1,13,736/- . 16. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant in WCA No.148/2011 as per wound certificate he had sustained following injuries: "malunited fracture of upper end of left ulna, pain and tenderness over fracture site, wasting of the muscles of forearm, range of movements of elbow joint are painful and restricted. He finds difficult to lift weights and carrying the profession." 17. The Doctor had given evidence that due to the above said injuries he had sustained permanent disability to the tune of 35%-40% and accordingly learned Commissioner has taken the disability at 40% and accordingly calculated and quantified the compensation. But upon considering the nature of injuries sustained as stated above and considering the nature of job of the claimant, the assessment of percentage of disability is on the higher side. Therefore, percentage of disability in respect of claimant in WCA No.148/2011 is taken at 30%. 18. But upon considering the nature of injuries sustained as stated above and considering the nature of job of the claimant, the assessment of percentage of disability is on the higher side. Therefore, percentage of disability in respect of claimant in WCA No.148/2011 is taken at 30%. 18. Further, another argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that as per Section 4 Explanation II of the Act monthly income of the claimant ought to have been taken at Rs.4,000/-. But learned Commissioner has taken a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, it is in violation of Explanation II of Section 4 of the Act. This legal position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondentclaimant. As per Explanation II of Section 4 of the Act there is ceiling limit of income and to be taken into consideration at Rs.4,000/- per month. Therefore, income taken at Rs.5,000/- per month by the learned Commissioner while making assessment and granted compensation on the higher side. In this regard, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, income of Rs.4,000/- per month is taken into consideration for making assessment of the compensation. The age of the claimant is 29 years as on the date of the accident and multiplied with relevant factor is 209.92. Thus, compensation amount is quantified as follows: Rs.2,400/- x 30% x 209.92 = Rs.1,51,143/-. 19. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant in WCA No.149/2011 as per wound certificate he had sustained following injuries: "malunited fracture of both bones of left leg middle third, pain and tenderness over fracture site, wasting of muscles of thigh, range of movements of knee joint are painful and restricted, left leg is shortened by 1.5 cm, resulting he finds difficult to standing and walking, quatting, cross legged and finds difficult to carrying the profession." 20. The Doctor had given evidence that due to the above said injuries sustained by the claimant the disability to the tune of 40%-50% and accordingly learned Commissioner has taken the disability at 50% and accordingly calculated and quantified the compensation. But upon considering the nature of injuries sustained as stated above and considering the nature of job of the claimant, the assessment of percentage of disability is on the higher side. Therefore, percentage of disability in respect of claimant in WCA No.149/2011 is taken at 40%. But upon considering the nature of injuries sustained as stated above and considering the nature of job of the claimant, the assessment of percentage of disability is on the higher side. Therefore, percentage of disability in respect of claimant in WCA No.149/2011 is taken at 40%. The age of the claimant is 30 years as on the date of the accident and multiplied with relevant factor is 207.98. Thus, compensation amount is calculated as follows: Rs.2,400/- x 40% x 207.98 = Rs.1,99,660/-. 21. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimants submitted that in the present case the learned Commissioner had awarded compensation from the date of petition but it ought to have been granted from the date of the accident. 22. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant argued that if claimants have filed petitions well within the period of two years as stipulated under Section 10 of the Act, then respondent No.2 is liable to pay interest from the date of accident. But here in these cases there is a delay of six years in approaching the learned Commissioner. Therefore, for this delay respondent No.2 cannot be made burden. Therefore, submitted interest cannot be awarded for the delayed period. 23. Considering the principle of law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is true that the compensation is to be awarded from the date of the accident. The claimants have right to prefer petitions within a period of two years from the date of accident as per Section 10 of the Act. Therefore, till completion of two years the claimants have right to prefer petitions but here from the date of accident till filing of the petitions there is six years delay. For the delayed period after completion of two years period to prefer petition and till filing of the petition the claimants are not entitled interest. For this delayed period the claimants are responsible and the fault of the claimants cannot be made burden for payment of interest by the appellant/insurance company. Therefore, for this delayed period of about four years the appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay interest to the claimants. Even though the payment of compensation and statutory interest thereon accrues from the date of the accident but for the delayed period the claimants are not entitled interest. Therefore, for this delayed period of about four years the appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay interest to the claimants. Even though the payment of compensation and statutory interest thereon accrues from the date of the accident but for the delayed period the claimants are not entitled interest. Therefore, the appellant/insurance company shall pay compensation from the date of the accident for a period of two years and then soon after completion of two years period till the date of filing of the petitions and whatever this period of delay is there for this period the appellant/insurance company shall not pay interest on the compensation amount. 24. Therefore, the appeals are liable to be allowed in part. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeals filed by the appellant/insurance company are allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 21.02.2013 passed in WCA No.148/2011, WCA No.147/2011 and WCA No.149/2011 by the Labour Officer/Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Raichur, are modified and the appeals are allowed in part. The claimants are entitled compensation as determined above. For delayed period in preferring the petitions soon after completion of two years from the date of the accident and till preferring the petitions before the learned Commissioner, for this period the claimants are not entitled statutory interest on the compensation amount. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the concerned Court along with LCR.