Arun Bhansali, J.

This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment dated 28.2.2001 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, Rajasmand ('the Commissioner'), whereby the appellant has been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.52,948/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident.

2. The appellant filed application for compensation with the averments that he was engaged on the truck by respondent-Ram Singh as driver and was receiving salary @ Rs.2,500/- per month. The truck was plied by him from Kelwa to Kesariyaji for transporting Marbel Blocks and when he was returning back, the vehicle met with an accident resulting in the truck turning turtle on account of which, the appellant received grievous injuries and ultimately his right feet from below the knee was amputed. Based on the said averments, compensation to the tune of Rs.10,50,000/- was claimed.

3. The application was opposed by respondent No.2 - Insurance Company. The owner of the truck also filed his reply and submitted that liability, if any, is of the Insurance Company.

4. After hearing the parties, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on 26.8.1994, the appellant was driving the truck, the accident occurred during the course of employment, the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2- Insurance Company and, therefore, both insurer and the owner were liable jointly and severally.

5. The Commissioner assessed the disability of appellant at 50% and taking his income at Rs.2,000/- and based on the provisions of Explanation-2 to Section 4(1)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('the Act') took the income at Rs.1,000/- and assessed the compensation at Rs.52,948/-.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that though the accident occurred on 26.8.1994, the application for compensation was filed on 7.12.1995 and in the meanwhile the provisions of Explanation-2 to Section 4(1)(b) of the Act stood amended and the limit was extended to Rs.2,000/- and, therefore, the Commissioner was not justified in taking the maximum income at Rs.1,000/-. It was further submitted that the appellant was working as a driver and once his leg below the knee was amputed, in fact he was rendered 100% disabled and the Commissioner was not justified in taking the disability at 50% based on the Schedule-I of the Act.

7. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Suresh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. : 2010(13) SCC 777.

8. Further submissions were made that even the calculation made by the Commissioner is ex-facie faulty, inasmuch as, even after taking the income at Rs.1,000/- and applying the factor as per Schedule-IV i.e. 211.79, the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs.1,05,895/- and, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be modified.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company supported the judgment passed by the Commissioner. It was submitted that insofar as the retrospective operation of the amendment in the Explanation-2 to Section 4(1)(b) is concerned, the issue is no more res integra, inasmuch as, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Valsala K. & Anr. etc.: AIR 1999 SC 3502 has laid down that the amendments made by the Amendment Act, 1995 were not retrospective and the relevant date for applicability of provisions is the date of accident.

10. Further submissions were made that once the application has been filed by the appellant under the provisions of the Act and the Schedule attached to the Act provides for a specific percentage of disability qua a particular injury, the same has to be taken into consideration for awarding compensation and, therefore, the judgment impugned does not call for any interference.

11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

12. So far as the question of seeking compensat