Denesan, J.

Appellants are the legal heirs/dependents of deceased Raphel who met with an accident on 29.8.1995 while employed as the driver of the 1st respondent and subsequently died on 30th September 1995. The 2nd respondent is the insurer. Appellants preferred a claim under Sec.4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short, the Act) before the Workmen’s Compensation Court claiming compensation for the death of Sri Raphel alleging that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment under the 1st respondent.

2. The Court of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation raised the following issues for consideration:

1. “Whether the deceased was a workman as defined in the Act?

2. Whether the death resulted from the personal injury sustained to him in an accident arising out and during the course of his employment?

3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the amount claimed?

4. Which opposite party is liable for the compensation, if any?”

The issues were answered in favour of the workman. It was held that the primary liability for payment of compensation rests on the employer viz. 1st respondent and since there is a valid insurance coverage, the second respondent shall be directed to deposit a sum of Rs.62588/- with simple interest @ 6% per annum on the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Appellants are dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by the Workmen’s Compensation Court and hence this appeal.

3. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the computation of compensation awarded should be based on the provisions of Sec.4 of the Act as amended by Act 30/1995 w.e.f. 15.5.1995 or at the rates prevailed prior to the above amendment.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Workmen’s Compensation Court proceeded on the wrong assumption that the crucial date for determining the rate at which the compensation has to be worked out is the date of the accident whereas the correct date is the date of death in a case where the accident results in the death of the workman. It is also contended that the cause of action arises from the date of death as far as the legal heirs or dependents of a deceased workman are concerned. In order to fortify the above submission, learned counsel for the appellants draws our attention to Sec.10 of the Act. Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.10 says that no claim for compensation shall be entertained by the Commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner provided thereunder, as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and unless the claim is preferred within two years of the occurrence of the accident or, in the case of death, within two years from the date of death. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the legislature has taken note of the distinction between a claim for compensation for personal injuries sustained by the workman compensation for the death of the workman. It is contended that in the case of death, the liability of the employer to pay compensation to the legal heirs arises on and from the date of death and therefore the computation of compensation as far as death is concerned should be with reference to the law that prevails on the date of death.

5. The above submission is made in the peculiar fact situation of this case. The accident occurred on 29.8.1995. The date of death was 30.9.1995. In between the above two events, Sec.4 and some other provisions of the Act had undergone changes consequent on the amendment of the statute with effect from 15.9.1995. Sec.4 as it stood prior to 15.9.1995 imposed a liability on the employer to pay compensation for death resulting from injury at an amount equal to 40% of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor or an amount of Rs.20,000/- whichever was higher. Under the amended provisions the amount would be equal to 50% of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplie