JUDGMENT: 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 10.02.2003 in W.C.No.6 of 2002 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda, whereunder the Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs.75,964/- as compensation along with interest at 12% per annum. 2. The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, who is respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. 3. The appellant herein is respondent No.2, respondent No.1 is the applicant and respondent No.2 is the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition before the Tribunal. 4. There is no dispute with regard to the accident and the quantum of determination of amount. 5. Learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company has restricted his contentions on two grounds. Firstly, as per the admission of the workman as well as the employer, the wages admitted were Rs.1,300/- per month, whereas the Commissioner has granted the minimum wages over and above the agreed amount. According to him, the contract between the employer and the employee prevails over the statutory requirement and therefore, the Commissioner ought not to have awarded the amount over and above the contracted wages. It is also his submission that the terms of the policy of the contract show that the interest is not payable by the Insurance Company and it is the owner who has to pay the statutory interest required under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act’) for delayed payment. 6. There is no representation for the applicant – claimant. 7. In this regard, the definition of wages as stated under Section 2 (h) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is required to be referred to, which reads as under: ““wages'' means all remuneration, capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment [and includes house rent allowance].” 8. A reading of the above definition would show that two conditions are required for wages. A reading of the above definition would show that two conditions are required for wages. The first condition is, wages should be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment and the second requirement is that they should be payable, if the terms of the contract of employment express or implied were fulfilled. The expression “if the terms of contract of employment, express or implied were fulfilled” refers only to such terms of contract of employment as are required to be fulfilled by the employed person. The said expression has no reference to the terms of contract, which are to be fulfilled by the employer. The object of Minimum Wages Act is to provide that no employer shall pay wages to the work done in certain categories of workers less than the minimum wages prescribed by the notification under the Act. The Minimum Wages Act applies to the employees or the workmen, employed in scheduled employment. As per the notification given by the Government of Telangana, the workers employed in private transport are also included in the schedule of employment. 9. In this regard, Section 25 of the Minimum Wages Act also requires to be referred here, which reads as under: “Any contract or agreement, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, whereby an employee either relinquishes or reduces his right to a minimum rate of wages or any privilege or concession accruing to him under this Act shall be null and void in so far as it purports to reduce the minimum rate of wages fixed under this Act.” 10. Any contract, which reduces a right to minimum rate of wage is declared as null and void insofar as it purports to reduce the minimum wages fixed. This means, even if any agreement is there between the employer and the workman, whereunder less wages are agreed, such agreement is null and void. The right of workman to get minimum wages cannot be deprived of. 11. In the present case, there is no dispute that the employment of the workman, is in a scheduled employment and the Minimum Wages Act applies to the nature of employment in terms of notification issued by the Government of the State of Telangana. Therefore, the minimum wages act applies to the claimant herein. 11. In the present case, there is no dispute that the employment of the workman, is in a scheduled employment and the Minimum Wages Act applies to the nature of employment in terms of notification issued by the Government of the State of Telangana. Therefore, the minimum wages act applies to the claimant herein. Once it applies, any admission either by the claimant himself or by the employer to the effect that wages are paid less than under the Minimum Wages Act, such admission cannot be put against workman to his disadvantage. Therefore, the contention of the learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company that the Commissioner erred in granting minimum wages is unmerited and the same is rejected. 12. The second contention of the learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company is that the Company is not liable to pay interest on the component determined by the Commissioner. To support his contention, he relied upon the terms and conditions of the policy which read as under: “... 1. The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and subsequent amendments of the said Act prior to the date of the issue of Policy. 2. The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. It is hereby understood and agreed that the Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Acts of 1959 (8 of 1959) and 1962 (64 of 1962) and 1976 (65 of 1976) and 1984 (22 of 1984) are deemed to be added to the Laws set out in the Schedule to the Policy. Provided that insurance granted hereunder is not extended to include: (i) Any interest and/or penalty imposed on the insured on account of his/their failure to comply with the requirements laid down under W.C. Act 1923 and (ii) any compensation payable on account of occupational deceases listed in Part ‘C’ of Schedule III of the W.C. Act, 1923.” 13. The same kind of provision has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Harshadbhai, Amurtbhai Modhiya and another, (2006) 5 SCC 192 , whereunder the Apex Court held that the Contract terms prevail over the statutory provision of Workmen’s Compensation Act, since the policy is contractual in nature. Admittedly, in the present case, the policy is contractual policy and not statutory policy. Therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court squarely applies to the present case. 14. Admittedly, in the present case, the policy is contractual policy and not statutory policy. Therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court squarely applies to the present case. 14. In terms of the contract, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay interest which the employer is required to pay under the statute for default in payment of compensation from the date when it fell due. The latest judgements of the Apex Court in Shobha and Others Vs. the Chairman, Vitthalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited and Others (Civil Appeal No.1860 of 2022), whereunder the words ‘fell due’ as contained under Section 4 of the Act is interpreted to mean the date on which the incident occurred, whereby the employee suffered death/injuries. Thus, it means that the liability under the Act on the part of the employer commences from the date of the occurrence of incident. In default of compliance of such liability, the same provision provides a statutory interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Such rate of interest is payable from the date it fell due till the amounts are deposited. In the light of the contractual terms, the amounts which the employer is liable by virtue of Section 4 (a) of the Act up to the date of deposit, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay. It is the employer who shall pay such interest. 15. In the present case, the Commissioner has granted interest in default of deposit of amount within 30 days. In fact, the statutory requirement is that the interest has to be paid from the date of incident itself excluding 30 days. These findings of the Commissioner are required to be set aside. 16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the order passed by the Tribunal which is as under: i) The quantum of compensation fixed by the Commissioner is confirmed and the 1st respondent/employer is liable to pay statutory interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of incident excluding 30 days till the date of amounts which are to be deposited after determination of compensation. ii) As per the directions, the amounts were deposited by the Insurance Company within the time prescribed by the Commissioner. Therefore, there is no question of payment of any interest to be paid by the Insurance Company on such amount. ii) As per the directions, the amounts were deposited by the Insurance Company within the time prescribed by the Commissioner. Therefore, there is no question of payment of any interest to be paid by the Insurance Company on such amount. iii) The 1st respondent alone shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of incident excluding 30 days till the date of amounts deposited by the 2nd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.