JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed against award dated 05.10.2017, passed by Commissioner under Employee's Compensation Act Arki, District Solan, H.P in Case No. 3/2 of 2013 (16/2013). 2. The appeal is by the insurer, who has been saddled with the liability to satisfy the award. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”) preferred their claim before the Commissioner under Employee’s Compensation Act, Arki, District Solan seeking compensation on account of death of Shri Suresh Kumar. It was alleged that Shri Suresh Kumar was employed as driver to drive truck bearing registration No.HP-51B-2550 by respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as “the owner/employer”). The death of Shri Suresh Kumar had taken place on 16.08.2012 during the course of his employment with the owner/employer as the truck driven by him met with an accident. 4. Deceased Shri Suresh Kumar was stated to be aged 36 years at the time of his death. As per the claimants, he was earning monthly wages from the owner/employer and in addition he had income from the agriculture also. 5. The claim petition was contested by the owner/employer and insurer separately. 6. Learned Commissioner framed the following issues: Issue No.1: Whether Sh. Suresh Kumar son of Sh. Madan Lal was employed as a driver by the respondent No. 1 namely, Atul Sharma on his truck bearing registration No. HP-51B-2550?.......OPP. Issue No. 2: Whether Sh. Suresh Kumar son of Sh. Madan Lal had died on 16.08.2012, during the course of his employment as a driver with the respondent No.1?.....OPP. Issue No. 3: Whether Sh. Suresh Kumar son of Sh. Madan Lal was getting a salary of 12,000/- per month from the respondent No. 1 along with a sum of 600/-per day for daily expenses, as alleged?.....OPP. Issue No. 4: Whether his truck bearing registration No. HP-51B-2550 was insured with the respondent No. 2, as alleged?.....OPP. Issue No. 5: Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation amounting to 30,00,000/- (Thirty Lac only), as alleged?......OPP. Issue No. 6: Whether there is no liability of the respondent No. 1 towards the petitioners as the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2, as alleged?.....OPR-1 Issue No. 7: Whether Suresh Kumar son of Sh. Madan Lal was getting a salary of 5,000/- per month from the respondent No. 1 along with a sum of 200/-per day for daily expenses, as alleged?...... Madan Lal was getting a salary of 5,000/- per month from the respondent No. 1 along with a sum of 200/-per day for daily expenses, as alleged?...... OPR-1 Issue No. 8: Whether the deceased Sh. Suresh Kumar was not holding a valid and effective driving license?.....OPR-2 Issue No. 9: Whether the present petition is not maintainable, as alleged?.....OPR-2. Issue No. 10: Relief.” 7. Issue No.1 was decided in affirmative. Issues No.8 and 9 were answered in negative and all other issues were decided accordingly. 8. Learned Commissioner held that deceased Shri Suresh Kumar was earning Rs.11,000/- per month as he was getting monthly wages of Rs.5,000/- besides, Rs.200/- per day as daily allowance. Thus, after dividing the amount of Rs.11,000/- by 2, the figure of monthly earning was arrived at Rs.5,500/-. Keeping in view the age of deceased as 36 years, relevant factor of 194.64 was applied and a sum of Rs.10,70,520/- was awarded in favour of the claimants along with interest at the rate of 12%per annum from the date of accident till realization. 9. This appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law vide order dated 27.03.2024: “1. Whether the learned Commissioner under Employee's Compensation Act, below is right in taking monthly wages/income of the deceased as Rs 11,000/- instead of Rs 8,000/- per month as maximum fixed by amendment dated 31.5.2010 vide notification dated S.O 1258(E)? 2. Whether the appellant being insurance company is liable to pay interest on the insured amount under Employee's Compensation Act? 3. Whether the appellant being insurer is liable to pay penalty in case of not depositing the award amount within stipulated period ? 4. Whether the learned Commissioner below in right in taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 11,000/- per month in the absence of any documentary proof?” 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer has fairly contended that he will confine his challenge to the impugned award on the ground that it is excessive and to that extent is not in accordance with law. It has been contended that learned Commissioner could not legally consider the income of the deceased more than Rs.8,000/- in view of amendment brought in Employee’s Compensation Act w.e.f. 31.05.2010, whereby capping of income of the victim was placed at Rs.8,000/-. 12. It has been contended that learned Commissioner could not legally consider the income of the deceased more than Rs.8,000/- in view of amendment brought in Employee’s Compensation Act w.e.f. 31.05.2010, whereby capping of income of the victim was placed at Rs.8,000/-. 12. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant/insurer needs to be upheld. There is no denying the fact that Employee’s Compensation Act stood amended and in terms thereof notification dated 31.05.2010 was issued. The maximum income of the victim, as per this amendment, could not be taken to be more than Rs.8,000/-. 13. Indisputably, the accident, in question, had taken place on 16.08.2012 and at that time the aforesaid amended provision of Employee’s Compensation Act was in force. 14. As regards the factor of 194.64 applied in the instant case, the same needs no interference being in terms of provision of Employee’s Compensation Act and the relevant Schedule. 15. Thus, the income of deceased Shri Suresh Kumar was to be taken at Rs.8,000/- per month and, therefore, by application of Section 4 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, it was to be divided by 2 and the remainder was to be multiplied by the factor of 194.64. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.4,000 X 194.64= Rs.7,78,560/-. In addition, the claimants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% on the aforesaid award amount from the date of accident till the date of actual realization. 16. The substantial questions of law, as noticed above, are decided accordingly. 17. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Impugned award dated 05.10.2017, passed by Commissioner under Employee's Compensation Act Arki, District Solan, H.P in Case No. 3/2 of 2013 (16/2013) stands modified to the extent as detailed hereinabove. 18. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.