JUDGMENT : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. This appeal is directed against the impugned award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour (FAC), Kurnool in W.C. Case No.07 of 2004 dated 10.02.2009. 2. The appellant herein was the respondent No.2. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the appeal were the applicants, respondent No.4 was the respondent No.1/owner before the learned Commissioner. For the sake of the convenience the parties will be referred as were arrayed before the learned Commissioner. 3. The case of the Appellant in brief is that the deceased late B. Venkatesh was working as driver of the Tipper under the respondent No.1, who is the owner of the vehicle. On 07.09.2003, while the deceased was driving the tipper bearing No. AP 04T7047 loaded with gravel coming from quarry at Chetnepalli Village, when the tipper crossed Mantralayam Petrol Bunk at about 4.00 am, he met with an accident due to loss of control over the vehicle, resulting which, he sustained grievous injuries. Then he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, where he succumbed to injuries at about 08.50 am. The deceased was aged about 25 years. He used to get Rs.2,500/- per month as wages apart from daily batta of Rs.50/- per day. The applicants, who are the wife and children of the deceased sought compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased since the accident occurred out of and in the course of employment. The tipper is owned by the respondent No.1 and it is insured with the respondent No.2. Hence, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of accident. 4. Against the said claim, though the Opposite Party No.1/owner entered his appearance through his Advocate, but did not choose to file Counter or lead any evidence. The respondent No.2/Insurance company filed Counter denying the averments made in the application. 5. During the course of enquiry, the respondent No.1 herein, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined as PW.1 who filed her chief examination affidavit reiterating the contents of the petition. It was elicited in the cross examination that she is not an eye witness to the accident and she does not know how it occurred. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed a copy of the policy vide Ex.B.1 and reported no oral evidence. 6. It was elicited in the cross examination that she is not an eye witness to the accident and she does not know how it occurred. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed a copy of the policy vide Ex.B.1 and reported no oral evidence. 6. Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner fastened the liability on both the respondents jointly and severally by awarding compensation of Rs.3,83,892/- along with the interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident i.e., 07.09.2003 and ordered to deposit the amount within a period of 30 days. 7. Having been aggrieved by the impugned Order, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company preferred the present appeal on couple of points : (i) Though the applicants stated that the deceased used to get Rs.2,500/- per month as wages, the learned Commissioner erroneously considered the minimum wages as per G.O.Ms.No.30, L.E.T.& F (Lab-II), dated 27.07.2000 i.e., at the rate of Rs.3,595/- per month; and (ii) Whether the learned Commissioner in violation of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court awarded interest at 12% p.a., from the date of accident? 8. Heard. Perused the material on record. 9. Having heard the submissions of both sides and on perusal of the record, substantial questions of law that would arise for determination in this appeal are : (i) Whether the learned Commissioner is justifiable in considering the minimum wages as against the actual wages which the deceased worker used to get? (ii) Whether awarding interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of accident is sustainable under law? Point No.1: Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though the claimant as PW.1 deposed that her husband used to get Rs.2500/- per month as wages, the learned Commissioner considered the wages as Rs.3,595/- as per G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 27.07.2000. Let us examine any merit in this argument. As seen from the impugned Order, as per the G.O.Ms.No.30, L.E.T & F ( Lab-II), dated 27.07.2000, minimum wage was fixed at Rs.3,595/-. There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased driver, who is the husband of the first respondent, is a heavy vehicle driving license holder. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A.3 would show that the deceased workman had license to drive heavy vehicle. The minimum wages fixed for the year 2000 as per the G.O.Ms.No.30 referred supra. There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased driver, who is the husband of the first respondent, is a heavy vehicle driving license holder. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A.3 would show that the deceased workman had license to drive heavy vehicle. The minimum wages fixed for the year 2000 as per the G.O.Ms.No.30 referred supra. The evidence of PW.1 is vivid on the point that the deceased used to get Rs.2,500/- per month as wages apart from Rs.50/- per day as batta, amounting to Rs.4,000/- per month. Instead of Rs.4,000/- per month, the learned Commissioner awarded Rs.3,595/- as wages of the driver. Nevertheless, the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is purely a question of fact. This Court does not find any substantial question of law on this issue. Furthermore, no evidence let in by the respondent No.2 disputing the minimum wages. Pertinent to say that the minimum wages need to be fixed for the year 2003 since the accident occurred on 07.09.2003, but that was not done. In the light of the discussion referred supra, there is no merit on this point. Point No.2: The next ground of attack against the order impugned is awarding interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of accident. This point is no more Res-Integra in the light of the following authorities. 10. This Court in Midicharla Ramanamma v V. Naga Prathap, 2005 0 ACJ 397 held as follows : “Section 4A of the Act reads as follows: 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 workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim. (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this 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 per cent 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 the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount by way of penalty: Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under Clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed. 11. In the very recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajaya Kumar as and another vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2022 Live Law (SC) 102, dated 24.01.2022, the court has cited the judgments of Saberabibi Yakubhai Shaikh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Siby George and P. Meenaraj vs. P. Adigurusamy & Another three, in which it is clearly held at para No.5, which is as under : “5. The judgment of the High Court is inexplicable. Having dismissed the appeal of the insurer on the ground of limitation, there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere on merits with the award of interest on compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923. When the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation, the High Court could not have entertained it on merits. The error on the part of the High Court has led a labourer and his spouse to travel all the way to this Court. Though the accident took place in 2000, the course of litigation would now end only with the present judgment. To set the record straight, the High Court has erred on merits as well. The error on the part of the High Court has led a labourer and his spouse to travel all the way to this Court. Though the accident took place in 2000, the course of litigation would now end only with the present judgment. To set the record straight, the High Court has erred on merits as well. Section 4A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 stipulates that the Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay interest of 12% or at a higher rate, not exceeding the lending rates of any scheduled banks specified, if the employer does not pay the compensation within one month from the date it fell due. In Saberabibi Yakubhai Shaikh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., this Court held that interest shall be paid on the compensation awarded from the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim in view of the decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George where it was held that compensation would fall due from the date of the accident. Further, in the recent decision in P. Meenaraj v. P. Adigurusamy, this Court reiterated that the applicant is entitled to interest from the date of accident while rejecting the submission that the award of interest should be after the expiry of 30 days from the date of accident. Thus, there was no legal basis for the High Court to delete the order of payment of interest.” 12. In the light of the authorities referred to supra, the niceties of law cannot extricate the appellant from an obligation that shows directly through the Award for payment of interest to the applicant. Therefore, unable to accede to the contentions put forward by the appellant this Court has no hesitation to hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.