JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. The insurer is in appeal against the judgment dated 31.12.2012 passed under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act awarding compensation of Rs. 6,40,710/- to the claimant alongwith interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. 23.09.2006 till realization. 2. Respondent No.1 filed claim petition with the averments that her son Sh. Subhkaran was working as a truck driver with respondent No.2. He was being paid salary @ Rs.2500/- per month +Rs.120/- per day diet money. Her son was unmarried and the only bread earner of the family consisting of his parents and two younger brothers. He met with an accident while driving the truck on 23.08.2006, which resulted in his death. Respondent No.2, the owner of the truck was proceeded ex-parte. The insurer opposed the claim petition. Learned Court below vide its judgment dated 31.12.2012 held that deceased Sh. Subhkaran was a workman within the purview of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. He died in the course of his employment. His monthly wages were taken as Rs. 2500/- + Rs. 3600 as monthly diet money. Thus in all, monthly wages of Sh. Subhkaran were assessed at Rs.6100/- . Age of Sh. Subhkaran at the time of his death was ascertained as 27 years, accordingly, relevant factor was taken as 213.57 as per Schedule IV provided under the Act. The amount of payable compensation was computed at Rs.3000 (6100/2) X 213.57= 6,40,710/-. 3. The only contention raised by learned Senior Counsel for the insurer is that the accident had taken place on 23.08.2006. At the relevant time, there was a cap imposed upon maximum income of the deceased workman in terms of Explanation II to Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In accordance with that cap of Rs.4000/-, the monthly wages of the deceased could not have been taken more than Rs.4000/- for calculating payable compensation. 4. The contention of learned Senior Counsel is well founded in law. Hon’ble Apex Court in (2020) 4 SCC 594 (K.Sivaraman & Ors Vs. P. Sathishkumar & Anr.) held that prior to the amendment of the Workmen’s Compensation Act by Act 45 of 2009, which came into force on 18.11.2010, by virtue of the deeming provision in Explanation II to Section 4, the monthly wages of an employee were capped at Rs.4000/- even where the employee was able to prove the payment of monthly wages in excess of Rs.4000/-. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the Amendment Act 45 of 2009 which deleted Explanation II to Section 4 of the Act would not be applicable to the accidents that occurred prior to coming into force of the amended Act. Relevant extracts from some paragraphs of the judgment read as under:- “12 Section 4(1)(a) of the Act contains the following provision: 4. Amount of compensation.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:— (a) where death results from the injury the injury an amount equal to fifty per cent of the monthly wages of the deceased from the injury employee multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of one lakh and twenty thousand rupees, whichever is more; 13……. 14. By Act 45 of 2009, which came into force on 18-1-2010, Explanation II came to be deleted. Sub-section (1B) was introduced in Section 4 to read as follows: 4.(1-B) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, for the purposes of sub-section (1), such monthly wages in relation to an employee as it may consider necessary. 15. The question before this Court is whether the benefit of Act 45 of 2009 deleting the deeming provision in Explanation II which capped the monthly wages of an employee at Rs 4,000 would also apply to accidents which took place prior to the coming into force of its provisions i.e. 18 January 2010 and where final adjudication is pending. In assessing whether the Act 45 of 2009 applies retrospectively, it is necessary to analyze the relevant precedents of this Court. In Pratap Narain Singh, the first respondent was in the employment of the appellant and suffered injuries which arose out of and in the course of employment. It was contended that the Commissioner committed an error of law in imposing a penalty on the appellant under Section 4A(3) of the 1923 Act as the compensation payable had not fallen due until it was “settled” by the Commissioner under Section 19 of the 1923 Act. Section 4A reads: 4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.- (1) Compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. Section 4A reads: 4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.- (1) Compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the employee, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the employee to make any further claim. (3)Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall – (a) Direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and (b) If, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount by way of penalty:” 16 to 32……… 33. In the present case, the accident occurred on 31 January 2008 i.e. prior to the coming into force of Act 45 of 2009. Consequently, the High Court erred in extending the benefit of Act 45 of 2009 which deleted Explanation II to Section 4 to the present case. The High Court was required to determine the compensation payable on the date of the accident on which date, the deemed cap of Rs 4000 as monthly wages was applicable.” In the backdrop of above settled legal position even though monthly wages of the deceased were assessed at Rs.6100/-, however, the accident in question had occurred on 23.08.2006 i.e. prior to the coming into force of amending Act 45 of 2009. Thus, the ceiling limit of Rs.4000/- per month on wages in force on the date of accident in terms of Explanation II to Section 4 of the unamended Act, would be applicable. Thus, the ceiling limit of Rs.4000/- per month on wages in force on the date of accident in terms of Explanation II to Section 4 of the unamended Act, would be applicable. Accordingly, wages of the deceased would have to be taken at Rs.4000/- per month in terms of Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act as it existed at the relevant time. Payable compensation would come out to Rs.2000/- (4000/2 X 213.57 = 4,27,140/-). Ordered accordingly. In addition to this compensation amount, the claimant would also be entitled to statutory interest @ 12% per annum from 23.09.2006 till the date of deposit of the amount. The impugned judgment shall stand modified only to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.