Mohinder Pal, J.

Being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 30.4.1998 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Kutchh at Bhuj in Workmen Compensation Applications No. 2 of 1996 and 4 of 1996, the Insurance Company has preferred these appeals.

2. These two appeals are filed by the appellant the New India Insurance Company Limited on the ground that the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has not applied the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in calculating the award and grant of interest even though the accident happened on 16.7.1991 when the relevant provisions of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 were applicable. Further, at the relevant time, the rate of interest was 6% per annum and not 12% per annum.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has raised two folds arguments. According to him, the rate of interest assessed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation is required to be modified as the interest payable to the claimants, at the relevant time was 6% in place of 12% assessed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. It is further argued that the monthly income of workmen at Rs. 1100/- in First Appeal No. 3444/1998 and Rs. 2000/- in First Appeal 3445/1998 assesses by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation was against the provisions of the Act. According to him, as per section 4 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, the monthly income should have been assessed at Rs. 1000/- in both these cases.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the workmen has controverted this submission by arguing that in view of the amendment which came in force w.e.f. 15.9.1995, the rate of interest should have been 6% from the date of accident till 15.9.1995, and thereafter, till the payment @ 12% per annum. He has further argued that the income of the workmen assessed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation at the rate of Rs. 1100/- in First Appeal No. 3444/1998 and Rs. 2000/- in First Appeal No. 3445/1998 was just and proper and was not required to be interfered with.

5. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides on this point. It cannot be disputed that at the time of accident the provisions of the Act, 1923 were applicable and not the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act, which came into force w.e.f. 15.9.1995. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation seems to have committed an error in applying the provisions of 15.9.1995 retrospectively as the incident in this case has taken place on 16.7.1991. This view is based upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George & Ors., reported in AIR 2012 SC 3144. The relevant para-9 of the said judgment reads as under:

"9. The matter once again came up before the Court when by amendments introduced in the Act by Act No. 30 of 1995 the amount of compensation and the rate of interest were increased with effect from 15.9.1995. The question arose whether the increased amount of compensation and the rate of interest would apply also to cases in which the accident took place before 15.9.1995. A three Judge Bench of the Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K., AIR 1999 SC 3502 answered the question in the negative holding, on the authority of Pratap Narain Singh Deo, that the payment of compensation fell due on the date of the accident. In paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the decision the Court observed as follows:

1. The neat question involved in these special leave petitions is whether the amendment of Sections 4 and 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, made by Act No. 30 of 1995 with effect from 15.9.1995, enhancing the amount of compensation and rate of interest, would be attracted to cases where the claims in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from an accident caused during the course of employment, took place prior to 15.9.1995 ?"

2. xxx xxx xxx

3. xxx xxx xxx

6. Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, reads as under:

4. Amount of co