Ravikumar, J.

What is the impact of the amendment brought to Explanation-II to section 4(1)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 by Amendment Act 46 of 2000 as relates the deemed monthly wages of a workman who met with an accident prior to its coming into force, in the matter of computation of the amount of compensation? The said question crops up for consideration in this appeal at the instance of the second opposite party in W.C.C.No.190/2000 on the files of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in the light of the following factual matrix:-

The applicant (first respondent herein) was working under the first party before the Commissioner as driver in lorry bearing Reg.No.KL/11/A/675. On 18.5.2000, during midnight, he was driving the said vehicle towards Bangalore and at about 2 a.m on 19.5.2000, when the lorry reached at Mandya, it went off the road from the highway and dashed against a tree standing on the road side, due to mechanical defect. He sustained severe injuries in the said accident. Ext.A1 would reveal that he sustained fracture Ulna (Rt.), Inferior Radius Ulna joint dislocation (Rt.) and extensive raw area involving whole fore arm. He was initially treated at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bangalore and from there, he was referred to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. He had been an inpatient there, from 2.6.2000 to 21.6.2000. It was in the said circumstances that he filed an application under section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') claiming Rs.1,50,000/-as compensation for the personal injuries sustained by him.

2. After following the procedural formalities, the application was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. The first and second opposite parties who are respectively the owner and insurer of the aforesaid lorry entered appearance and filed separate written statements. The first opposite party, the owner of the vehicle admitted the ownership of the vehicle and the employment of the applicant/first respondent herein as also the accident. He would further state therein that the vehicle in question was covered by a valid insurance policy issued by the second opposite party and therefore, the second opposite party got liability to indemnify him. In fact, the second opposite party was not originally a party to the said lis. The applicant-the first respondent herein filed an application for impleadment of the insurer of the vehicle and the same was allowed and the insurer was, accordingly, impleaded as the second opposite party. On appearance, the insurer/appellant, too, admitted the insurance coverage, but denied all other averments in the application. On the side of the applicant/first respondent, he got himself examined as AW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were got marked. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was tendered by the opposite parties. It was on an analysis of the evidence on record and appreciation of the arguments advanced by both sides that the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.2,38,846/- was granted as compensation with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the accident. As per the impugned order, the second opposite party/appellant was directed to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and in default of payment of the said amount within the stipulated time, it was ordered that the amount would be realised with a penalty of 30%. It is in the said circumstances that the second opposite party, the insurer of the offending vehicle, filed the captioned appeal.

3. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

4. It is evident from the rival contentions and pleadings that the only substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is the one mentioned in the opening paragraph. In other words, wheth