JUDGMENT : 1. By way of instant appeal, the judgment dated 17th January, 2012 passed by learned Commissioner, under Workmen's Compensation Act, Court No.1, Mandi, H.P., in W.C.A. No. 16/2011, has been assailed by the insurer. 2. The claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 had preferred a claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act (for short “the Act”), on account of death of Shri Yadvinder, who was working as a driver with respondent No.6 and who had died in an accident involving the bus being driven by him during the course of his employment under respondent No.6. 3. The deceased was proved to be 39 years old at the time of his death. It was also proved that he was earning Rs.4000/- per month from salary and Rs.75/- per day as diet money being paid to him by respondent No.6. The vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurer. 4. Learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.5,75,531/- in favour of the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5. The liability to pay compensation was fastened on the appellant/insurer. In addition, interest @6% per annum on the awarded amount w.e.f. 12.03.2007 till realization was awarded in favour of the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 and liability to this effect was fastened on the insured/respondent No.6. 5. The appellant has assailed the impugned award primarily on the ground that the learned Commissioner had wrongly accepted the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,250/-. It has been contended that the date of accident was 12.02.2007, therefore, the provisions of Section 4 of the Act applicable on the date of accident would be relevant and not the amended provisions of law applicable at the time of filing of the petition. 6. The instant appeal was admitted on 13.08.2012 on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the learned Commissioner has erred in giving retrospective application to the amended provisions of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, when the accident had taken place on 12.2.2007? 2. Whether the learned Commissioner has wrongly saddled the liability on the appellant to pay the interest amount? 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and for respondents No.6. Respondents No. 1 to 5 have remained unrepresented since 10.09.2021. 8. The first substantial question of law as detailed hereinabove needs to be answered in affirmative. It is not in dispute that the accident had taken place on 12.02.2007. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and for respondents No.6. Respondents No. 1 to 5 have remained unrepresented since 10.09.2021. 8. The first substantial question of law as detailed hereinabove needs to be answered in affirmative. It is not in dispute that the accident had taken place on 12.02.2007. On the said date, Explanation II to Section 4 of the Act was still on the statute book, which read as under:- “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.” Thus, the law as applicable on the date of accident had capped the maximum considerable monthly wages of a workman at Rs. 4000/-. It was after the amendment carried in the Act vide amending Act No. 45 of 2009, made effective w.e.f. 18.01.2010, the second explanation to Section 4 of the Act was omitted. 9. The question as to whether the amendment in Section 4 of the Act carried w.e.f. 18.01.2010 will have prospective or retrospective operation is no more re integra. It is more than settled now that the claimants shall be entitled to compensation under the Act as applicable on the date on which cause of action arose. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the accident had taken place on 12.02.2007 i.e. before the Act No. 45 of 2009 came into being. The reference can be made in this regard to the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board & another vs. Valsala K. & another, (1999)8 SCC 254 and also K. Sivaraman & others vs. P. Satish Kumar & another, (2020)4 SCC 594 . 10. In the light of above noticed legal position, there is no hesitation in holding that the learned Commissioner has erred in assessing monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,250/-. Consequently, the calculations of awarded amount on the basis of such monthly income can not be sustained. The monthly income of the deceased was to be capped at Rs.4,000/- per month and the multiplier was to be applied on 50% of such amount. Thus, the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 were entitled to an amount of Rs.3,68,340/- (2000 x 184.17). 11. Consequently, the calculations of awarded amount on the basis of such monthly income can not be sustained. The monthly income of the deceased was to be capped at Rs.4,000/- per month and the multiplier was to be applied on 50% of such amount. Thus, the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 were entitled to an amount of Rs.3,68,340/- (2000 x 184.17). 11. As regards the second substantial question of law noted above, it appears to have been framed under misconception of facts. The impugned award reveals that the liability to pay interest has been fastened on the employer, who was respondent No.1 before the learned Commissioner. Since, the employer has not assailed the award, the findings to that effect have attained finality. Therefore, the second substantial question of law need not be answered by this court in appeal. 12. In the light of above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent only that the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 are held entitled to a sum of Rs.3,68,340/- on account of compensation, to be payable by the appellant/insured. Remaining part of the award having attained finality remains undistrubed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back to the quarter concerned.