JUDGMENT Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. - Even though the appeals are at the stage of admission but at the consent of the learned counsels for both the parties, these appeals are taken up for final hearing and for disposal. 2. The MFA No.201043/2017 is preferred by the Insurance Company on the ground for reduction of compensation amount. The MFA No.202000/2017 is preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. 3. The rank of the parties are as referred to before the learned Senior Civil Jude and Additional MACT, Shorapur (for short the learned 'Senior Civil Judge') for convenience while referring in this case. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the deceased was working as a driver in the tipper lorry vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-28-C-0659 under the employment of respondent No.1 who is the owner of the said vehicle and was insured with respondent No.2 and on 21.02.2015 at the instruction of his employer the respondent No.1, the deceased has taken the Tipper vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-28-C-0659, going to Kalaburagi and when he reached Firozabad Darga on NH-218 at about 11.30 p.m., the said vehicle was met with an accident with another lorry bearing Reg.No.GJ- 1-CT-5596, which was coming from opposite direction and in the said accident the deceased was driving the Tipper lorry sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 5. The claimant No.1 is the wife and claimants No.2 and 3 are the father and mother of the deceased have filed the claim petition before the learned Senior Civil Judge for grant of compensation. 6. The claimant No.1 being the wife of deceased had given evidence as PW.1 and produced documents as Exs.P1 to P9. The respondents have not placed any documentary evidence or oral evidence before the learned Senior Civil Judge. 7. After assessing and evaluating the evidences on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge had awarded compensation of Rs.10,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation of amount by considering the fact that the age of the deceased was 28 years and taking monthly income at Rs.10,000/- and accordingly awarded compensation. 8. After assessing and evaluating the evidences on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge had awarded compensation of Rs.10,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation of amount by considering the fact that the age of the deceased was 28 years and taking monthly income at Rs.10,000/- and accordingly awarded compensation. 8. The respondent No.2 Insurance Company preferred MFA No.201043/2017 for reducing the compensation amount on the ground that the learned Senior Civil Judge has held the monthly wage of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- is on higher side but as per the Central Government Notification No.S.O.1258(E), dated 31.05.2010 issued as per sub-section 1-B of section 4 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, the monthly wage has to be taken at Rs.8,000/- only and accordingly the quantum of compensation is to be redetermined and accordingly compensation be awarded. 9. The MFA No.202000/2017 is preferred by the claimants for seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the interest awarded by the learned Senior Civil Judge is contrary to the Act, but ought to have been awarded at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident. Therefore, submitted in this regard that the learned Senior Civil Judge has committed an error. Hence, the appeal. 10. Heard the arguments from both sides, the substantial questions of law that would arise for consideration are - 1. Whether the learned Senior Civil Judge has erred in taking the monthly wage at Rs.10,000/- considering the factor that the deceased was driving the tipper lorry and according to the prevailing rate of wage as on the date of accident ? 2. Whether the learned Senior Civil Judge has committed error in awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition is contrary to the provision of Section 4A(3)(a) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 ? 11. The learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.201043/2017 contended that the learned Senior Civil Judge has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month is on higher side and contrary to the notification issued by the Central Government stated supra and as per this notification the monthly wage at Rs.8,000/- to be taken into consideration and accordingly compensation has to be awarded. Therefore, it is submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that as per Central Government notification, monthly wage at Rs.8,000/- is only to be taken and not higher than that of and if whatever higher than that of is taken that is contrary to the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the 'Act'). Therefore, on this ground, the judgment and award is challenged. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that considering the nature of job of the deceased who was driver of the Tipper lorry which is heavy goods vehicle and accordingly the learned Senior Civil Judge has taken the monthly wage at Rs.10,000/- per month and which is as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaya Biswal and others vs. Branch Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited and another, (2016) AIR SC 956 and in this cited case, the deceased was the truck driver and accordingly monthly wage at Rs.10,000/- per month is taken and in the present case is followed the same, hence, there is no need to interfere in the judgment and award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge. 13. In the present case, when the evidences on record are considered in the first information report, it is stated that the deceased was driving the tipper lorry. Upon considering the first information statement along with Ex.P.1 first information report, Ex.P.2 charge sheet, in which it also shows deceased was driving the tipper lorry. Ex.P.8 driving licence of the deceased which shows that the deceased was also authorized to drive transport vehicle and which was having validity till 21.05.2016. Therefore, the deceased was having authorisation by virtue of driving licence as discussed above to drive the transport vehicle which in the present case tipper lorry. The tipper lorry is a heavy goods vehicle therefore quite naturally driving of such heavy vehicle the monthly wage of the workman driver is always not less than Rs.10,000/- per month as on the date of accident. Considering this, the submission made by the counsel for the respondent No.2 Insurance Company that the deceased was holding light motor vehicle licence only is not sustainable for the reason that Ex.P.8 - driving licence also shows that there is endorsement that the deceased was authorised to drive transport vehicle. 14. Considering this, the submission made by the counsel for the respondent No.2 Insurance Company that the deceased was holding light motor vehicle licence only is not sustainable for the reason that Ex.P.8 - driving licence also shows that there is endorsement that the deceased was authorised to drive transport vehicle. 14. Further the deceased was authorised to drive bus also having badge and therefore the deceased was holding driving licence authorising to drive not only light motor vehicle but also heavy goods vehicle and also the bus. Therefore, the deceased is proved to be a skill driver in driving all category of vehicles as per the driving licence Ex.P.8. 15. Considering the factors that it is proved as per the discussion made above, the deceased was driving the heavy goods vehicle, was authorised to drive all types of vehicles which is stated above and in the present case the vehicle is tipper lorry as it is revealed from documentary evidences the FIR and charge sheet and considering this factor the learned Senior Civil Judge has held the monthly wage at Rs.10,000/- per month and accordingly granted compensation. 16. To counter this the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that as per the Central Government Notification stated supra the monthly wage is only to be taken at Rs.8,000/-. Here in this regard, it is pertinent to discuss here that the Explanation II in Section 4 of the Act is omitted by Act 45 of 2009 with effect from 18.01.2010. In Explanation II what it was stood before amendment that whatever may the wage of the workman but the monthly wage of the workman shall be taken only Rs.4,000/-. In Explanation II before the amendment it was read as follows ;- 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. 17. The submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is on the line of this Explanation II and submitted that the words 'Rs.4000/-' it was mentioned now after the amendment it is 'Rs.8,000/-'. Therefore, submitted that monthly wage at Rs.8,000/- only is to be taken into consideration. 17. The submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is on the line of this Explanation II and submitted that the words 'Rs.4000/-' it was mentioned now after the amendment it is 'Rs.8,000/-'. Therefore, submitted that monthly wage at Rs.8,000/- only is to be taken into consideration. This submission of the counsel for the Insurance Company cannot be accepted for the reason that Explanation II was omitted with effect from 18.01.2010 by the Act 45 of 2009. But sub-section 1-B is inserted to Section 4 of the Act and by which the power is vested to the Central Government to issue notification regarding monthly wage of the workman, accordingly, it was issued. But considering sub-section 1-B of Section 4 of the Act, it is not mandatory always to take the monthly wage as it is stated in the Central Government notification. This Central Government Notification is only guiding factor that the quantum of income of the workman is to be taken into consideration. There is a difference between Explanation II before the amendment and subsection 1-B of Section 4 of the Act is inserted after the amendment. Therefore sub-section 1-B of Section 4 of the Act and by virtue of this notification issued by the Central Government regarding the monthly wage of workman is only a guiding factor to take the wage of the workman while computing and assessing the compensation. But in case of absence of proof of income, monthly wage is to be taken into consideration prevailing situation in the market whether the workman is able to maintain to himself along with family members. Therefore while assessing the income of the wage for the purpose of determining the compensation the practical aspect is to be taken into consideration. Therefore, in a similar facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaya Biswal case (stated supra) wherein also the deceased was truck driver and accordingly has taken monthly wage of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- and accordingly awarded compensation. In the present case also following the same, the learned Senior Civil Judge has considered the monthly wage at Rs.10,000/- and accordingly awarded compensation and therefore, I am of the opinion that this finding by the learned Senior Civil Judge cannot be found fault. In the present case also following the same, the learned Senior Civil Judge has considered the monthly wage at Rs.10,000/- and accordingly awarded compensation and therefore, I am of the opinion that this finding by the learned Senior Civil Judge cannot be found fault. Therefore, I find no merit in the submission made by the counsel for the Insurance Company so far as holding the monthly wage of the deceased for determining the compensation. Therefore, the MFA No.201043/2017 is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, substantial question of law is answered. 18. Considering the another aspect which is under challenge in the present appeal is that the learned Senior Civil Judge has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation of the amount awarded. This award of interest is contrary to the statute as per Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act. Therefore the claimants are entitled interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident/incident. Therefore, in this regard the learned Senior Civil Judge has committed error in awarding interest as above stated. Therefore, the claimants are entitled interest at the rate of 12% per annum as per Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act from the date of accident as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Srinivas Sabata and another, (1976) 1 SCC 289 and in Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2014) 2 SCC 298 . Accordingly, substantial question of law is answered. 19. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, since the monthly wage of the workman as held by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Rs.10,000/- is correct. Therefore, the MFA No.201043/2017 filed by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed and the MFA No.202000/2017 filed by claimants is allowed in part in terms of above stated. 20. The Insurance Company shall pay compensation to the claimants as above stated by deducting whatever amount paid if any.