The liability of the employer to pay compensation arises earlier than the order of the Commissioner, and the employer is liable to pay interest on the compensation amount from the date of the accident.

For several hearings there was no representation on behalf of the respondents. Today also there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. Hence this court is constrained to hear the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and pronounce judgment.

2. The order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem in his capacity as Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, dated 11.03.2002, made in W.C.No.23/2000, is the subject matter of challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. The first respondent herein was the applicant before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation in the above said W.C.No.23/2000.

3. contending that he sustained injuries on 11.05.1999 in an accident arising in the course of and out of his employment under the second respondent herein and that the same resulted in amputation of two fingers on his left hand, the first respondent/applicant had prayed for an award directing the second respondent herein, as the employer and the appellant herein as the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-together with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till payment of compensation.

4. The relationship of employer and employee between the second respondent and the first respondent herein has not been disputed. The further fact that the accident to the first respondent took place in the course of and out of his employment under the second respondent is also not disputed. The further fact that an insurance policy to indemnify the liability of the employer towards his employees under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act was in force is also not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the first respondent/applicant was aged 19 years as on the date of accident.

5. In the light of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation held that the first respondent/applicant suffered 55% of permanent disability because of the amputation of two fingers in the left hand. As there was no concrete evidence regarding the salary paid to the second respondent/applicant, the learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation took the minimum wages applicable to cleaners as per G.O.Ms.No.625/Labour and Employment Department dated 25.09.1995 and assessed the monthly salary of the first respondent/applicant at Rs.2,153/-. However, as per Explanation II to Section 4(1) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 as it then stood, the maximum amount that could be taken as the monthly wages of a workman for the purpose of computing compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 was only Rs.2,000/-. Holding that the petitioner was aged about 19 years, the Commissioner selected the relevant factor 225.22 on the ground that the first respondent/applicant suffered permanent disability at 55% and the loss of income was equivalent to the said percentage, the Commissioner made the calculations according to the formula and awarded a sum of Rs.1,48,645/-as compensation to the first respondent/applicant. The assessment of disability and the consequential calculation of compensation is challenged in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

6. The short point that arise for consideration is "whether the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation is right in relying on the certificate issued by the Medical practitioner regarding the percentage of disability when the injury is a scheduled injury?"

7. This court heard the submissions made by Mr.C.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.

8. Admittedly, the injury sustained by the petitioner is the one found in part 2 of first schedule to the Workmens Compensation Act, at Sl.No.9 dealing with the amputation of two fingers of one hand. As per the said entry, such an injury shall be assessed to have caused 20% of permanent disability. It is trite law that if the employment injury falls in any one of the