JUDGMENT : M. Venkata Ramana, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order in W.C. No. 46 of 2003 dated 27.01.2005 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II Circle, Guntur. 2. The dissatisfied applicant before the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ('Commissioner', for short) is the appellant. Respondents before the Commissioner are the respondents herein. By the order under appeal, compensation of Rs. 71,104/- was granted in favour of the appellant and against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally with a default clause to pay interest at 8% if the amount so awarded is not deposited within 30 days from the date of the impugned order. 3. The case of the appellant is as follows: The appellant was a cleaner in the lorry bearing No. AP 16U 1441 belonged to the 1st respondent. On 27.03.2003, when the appellant was going in the above lorry from Gannavaram of Macherla Mandal of Guntur District with a load of dry chillies to Guntur, at about 12 o' clock mid night, on account of the rash and negligent driving of this lorry by its driver, it turned turtle. As a result, the appellant received severe injuries including fracture to left leg above ankle joint and fracture of left knee joint during and in the course of employment. Setting out his earnings that he was being paid Rs. 2,500/- per month as wages by the 1st respondent, claiming that he was 25 years old by the date of the accident being healthy otherwise, setting forth the loss suffered by him on account of these fractures, resulting in loss of earning capacity due to his disability, he made a claim for Rs. 3,00,000/-. 4. The 1st respondent remained ex parte before the Commissioner. The 2nd respondent alone contested the claim denying in every respect and stating that it is not liable for the claim. 5. Basing on the pleadings and the material, the Commissioner settled the following issues for the purpose of enquiry: "1. Whether the applicant sustained permanent partial disability due to an accident arising out of and in the course of employment? 2. If so, for what compensation the applicant is entitled and who are liable to pay compensation?" 6. Before the Commissioner, the appellant examined himself as A.W.1 and the doctor who treated him as A.W.2, while relying on Ex. A1 to Ex. A10. 7. 2. If so, for what compensation the applicant is entitled and who are liable to pay compensation?" 6. Before the Commissioner, the appellant examined himself as A.W.1 and the doctor who treated him as A.W.2, while relying on Ex. A1 to Ex. A10. 7. Basing on the material and evidence, the Commissioner held that the appellant received injuries during and in the course of employment for the 1st respondent in the accident stated above and suffered grievous injuries. The nature of fractures is also held to result in permanent partial disability, which the appellant is suffering from. Thus, issue No. 1 was held in favour of the appellant, by the Commissioner. 8. In respect of issue No. 2, the Commissioner relying on the evidence of A.W.2 doctor observed that the appellant suffered permanent partial disability to the extent of 25% due to this accident and on the same basis considered loss of earning capacity at 25%. Basing on Ex. A7 and contention of the appellant, he was held being 25 years old on the date of the accident. Applying G.O.Ms. No. 30, dated 27.07.2000, basing on the minimum wages then payable to the category of the appellant, his income was considered at Rs. 2,181/-. On such basis compensation was awarded. 9. Sri A. Rajendra Babu for the appellant and Smt. A. Jayanthi for the 2nd respondent addressed arguments. 10. Substantial questions of law are set out as under in the grounds of appeal: "1. Whether the appellant was entitled only 25% of loss of earning capacity though the physical disability is to an extent of 25% as per the evidence of the qualified Medical Practitioner? 2. Whether the appellant is not entitled to 100% loss of earning capacity since he was permanently incapacitated to do the work what he was earlier doing in view of Sec. 2(1) of Workmen's Compensation Act?" 11. These two substantial questions of law since intertwined, they should be considered together. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS 1 and 2:- 12. The respondents did not question the order under appeal and therefore, the findings in relation to the incident in which the appellant suffered injuries, which had led to permanent partial disability, became final. 13. These two substantial questions of law since intertwined, they should be considered together. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS 1 and 2:- 12. The respondents did not question the order under appeal and therefore, the findings in relation to the incident in which the appellant suffered injuries, which had led to permanent partial disability, became final. 13. Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellant, mainly contended that the assumption of the commissioner towards loss of earning capacity at 25% basing on the evidence of A.W.2 doctor, who opined that the extent of disability suffered by the appellant at 25%, is not proper. The learned counsel further contended that the evidence on record also makes out that the appellant cannot work as cleaner anymore nor he can squat to enable him to attend any other work. Therefore, it is contended that the loss suffered by the appellant in his earning capacity basing on the material should be treated at 100% as per Section 2(1) of Workmen's Compensation Act. 14. In this context, Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellant, relied on N. Sreeramulu @ Sree Rama Murthy v. B. Lakshmi Narayana and another, 2013 (5) ALD 249 . 15. Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent, referring to the age of the appellant and nature of fractures suffered by him, contended that the evidence on record makes out that the fractures stood united and having regard to age of the appellant, the effect of these fractures cannot lead to permanent partial disability. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the appellant can attend to any other job, since he is not completely disabled nor can it be said that he cannot attend to normal duties. 16. The age of the appellant is a relevant factor to consider. The injuries suffered by the appellant resulting in fractures to left lower limb was considered by A.W.2 doctor who examined him, to result in permanent partial disability to a tune of 25%. This percentage of disability need not be equated to loss in earning capacity. There should be evidence on record to prove and establish that the fractures so suffered by the appellant above left ankle joint and left knee joint are such that they would not permit the appellant to attend to any other work. This percentage of disability need not be equated to loss in earning capacity. There should be evidence on record to prove and establish that the fractures so suffered by the appellant above left ankle joint and left knee joint are such that they would not permit the appellant to attend to any other work. Upon union of bones after these injuries got healed, possibility of making use of left lower limb as such, cannot be ruled out. Even if the appellant is not in a position to attend to his duties as a cleaner on a lorry, there is distinct possibility of attending to any other work. 17. Added to it, in order to consider the effect of these injuries, which are not mentioned in Schedule-I in terms of Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of Workmen's Compensation Act, the percentage of compensation payable is with reference to permanent total disablement in proportion to loss of earning capacity. For this purpose, qualified medical practitioner shall record such percentage of loss of earning capacity. Necessarily the nature of injuries referable for this purpose should be as specified in Schedule-I. Temporary disablement whether total or partial resulting from the injuries shall be considered in terms of Section 4(1)(d) and section 4(2) of this Act. 18. Apparently, there is no evidence from A.W.2 doctor specifically pointing out the percentage of loss of earning capacity. Added to it, the nature of disablement itself is permanent partial in nature. Evidence on record in this context either from A.W.1 or A.W.2 is not complete by itself. Therefore, what has been applied by the Commissioner in this context should be confirmed. There is no reason to consider the effect of the injuries to an extent of 100% of permanent partial disability as is sought for the appellant. 19. In N. Sreeramulu basing on several decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, principles are culled out as to nature and effect of the injuries. Some of the observations in this ruling relevant for the present purpose stated in para-26 are extracted hereunder: "(a) All injuries or permanent disabilities arising from injuries do not result in loss of earning capacity. ---------- (c) Where permanent partial disablement results from an injury and the injury is not specified in Schedule I, it would be covered by Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. ---------- (c) Where permanent partial disablement results from an injury and the injury is not specified in Schedule I, it would be covered by Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. In such a case, the workman would be entitled to such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity (as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner) permanently caused by the injury. ------------ (h) The loss of earning capacity arising from a permanent disability may be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Equating the percentage of loss of earning capacity to the percentage of permanent disability would result in the award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed is the effect of permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured. This involves ascertainment of what activities the claimant can carry on in spite of permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability; ascertainment of his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident and also his age; and finding out whether he is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood (or) whether in spite of permanent disability, he can still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on (or) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. In para 14 of Raj Kumar's case (supra) and in Para 8 of Mohan Soni's case (supra), appropriate guidance is available. ---------- (i) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequent to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Commissioner/Court with reference to the evidence in entirety." 20. When these factors are taken into consideration, having regard to nature and effect of the fractures suffered by the appellant, in view of paucity of evidence, inference to draw is that the percentage of disability considered by the Commissioner in the order under appeal is proper. There is no reason to interfere with the same. 21. When these factors are taken into consideration, having regard to nature and effect of the fractures suffered by the appellant, in view of paucity of evidence, inference to draw is that the percentage of disability considered by the Commissioner in the order under appeal is proper. There is no reason to interfere with the same. 21. Rightly the Commissioner took into consideration the age of the appellant at 25 years and the wages basing on G.O.Ms. No. 30, dated 27.07.2000 at Rs. 2,181/-. On such basis, compensation was computed. Thus, the parameters applied by the Commissioner as such cannot be found fault with in the given circumstances of the case. 22. However, the commissioner did not choose to award interest on the compensation so determined. 23. In terms of Section 4-A of Workmen's Compensation Act, an employer when defaults in paying the compensation as per the said Act within one month from the date it fell due, it is the duty of the Commissioner to direct him not only pay the compensation but also simple interest at 12% p.a. or at bank's lending rate. For this purpose, the obligation of the employer to pay compensation to the appellant fell due on the date of the accident itself i.e. 27.03.2003. It is not the contention of anyone that the 1st respondent had paid compensation or a part of it in terms of this Act to the appellant. Therefore, his liability stands to pay the interest in terms of Section 4(A)(3) of Workmen's Compensation Act. 24. In as much as there is no dispute as to subsisting contract of insurance between the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent by the date of the accident and liability being joint and several, the 2nd respondent is equally responsible to pay this interest. The contract of insurance itself provide for indemnifying the 1st respondent from any liability. Therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay interest on the amount apparently deposited before the Commissioner upon passing of this order. This interest at 9% p.a. if awarded for this purpose payable from 27.03.2003 till the date of deposit of compensation before the Commissioner, it shall be in the interests of justice. 25. Therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay interest on the amount apparently deposited before the Commissioner upon passing of this order. This interest at 9% p.a. if awarded for this purpose payable from 27.03.2003 till the date of deposit of compensation before the Commissioner, it shall be in the interests of justice. 25. Directing to pay interest as a default clause in the event of the respondents' failing to deposit the compensation awarded within 30 days from the date of order as if applying Section 4-A of Workmens' Compensation Act, cannot amount to meeting this statutory requirement. 26. Only to this extent, the award requires interference. 27. Thus, these questions are answered. 28. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part modifying the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II Circle, Guntur in W.C. No. 46 of 2003 dated 27.01.2005 directing to deposit interest at 9% on Rs. 71,704/- for the period from 27.03.2003 up to the date of deposit before the Commissioner of this compensation. No costs. Upon such deposit, the Commissioner is directed to disburse the same in terms of Workmen's Compensation Act and without necessity of furnishing any security. As sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.