(1.) THE above appeal has been admitted on following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the respondent Ambika charan Sharma who was working as j. E. (Electrical) at the time of accident is a workman covered by the definition under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as amended from time to time?

(ii) Whether the order of the Commissioner below is illegal on the ground that the Commissioner had applied multiplier of amended Act, 2000 for assessing the amount of compensation whereas the accident had occurred prior to amended act?

(2.) THE facts in brief are that applicant ambika Sharma, J. E. (E), Electrical Subdivision, H. P. P. W. D. , Snowdon, Shimla met with an accident on 6. 11. 2000 while performing his duties on LT Panel. A non-fatal accident report was submitted by the executive Engineer, Electrical Division no. 2, H. P. P. W. D. , Shimla-1 vide his letter dated 1. 12. 2000 informing the Commissioner about the accident. A notice was issued to the respondents and to submit requisite documents as well as their reply.

(3.) THE further facts are that when the applicant and others were working on LT panel on 6. 11. 2000, they got electrical substation shut down for conducting necessary repairs. At about 4 p. m. at the time of re-channellising the cable on the pole it was felt that main-line was leaking current, applicant went to the substation to inform khiali Ram, another Junior Engineer, regarding leakage of the current despite shut down. When they were about to check the fault, a sudden flash of electricity caused extensive damage and burning of seven employees very badly; two employees succumbed to their injuries later on, five of them suffered severe burns on their heads, hands and other parts of the bodies. The applicant also suffered severe burns on his head, cheeks, hands and legs. He remained under treatment for many months. F. I. R. was registered. Disability of the applicant was assessed 80 per cent by the Medical board on 12. 11. 2001.

(4.) THE learned Commissioner awarded rs. 3,87,213 compensation vide impugned order to the applicant. It has further been directed that in case the compensation is not deposited within two months then the respondents would be liable to pay 50 per cent penalty on the compensation amount. Respondents have assailed the impugned order in the above appeal. The parties, for convenience, are referred in the same manner as in the impugned order. Substantial Question of Law No. 1:

(5.) IT has been urged on behalf of the respondents that applicant was Junior Engineer (Electrical) at the time of accident and, therefore, he was not workman under workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act'). On the contrary, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was workman at the time of accident even though he was Junior Engineer at the relevant time. At the relevant time, the definition of 'workman' under section 2 (1) (n) of the Act was as under:

" (n) 'workman' means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business)who is-xxx xxx xxx (ii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the armed Forces of the Union and any reference to a workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them. "

(6.) THE definition of 'workman' does not exclude the Junior Engineer working on electric lines and fixtures. On the contrary, item (ix) of Schedule II of the Act is as under: " (ix) employed in setting up, maintaining, repairing or taking down any telegraph or telephone line or post or any overhead electric line or cable or standard or fittings and fixtures for the same. "

(7.) THE applicant, Ambika Sharma, has deposed that on 6. 11. 2000 he, along with other employees, was working on electric pole. At about 2 p. m. electrical substation was shut down. At about 4 p. m. when they were fixing the cable then Dharam Dutt, workman, said that there was current in the line. He went to the substation to inform this fact to Khiali Ram, Junior Engineer, h. P. S. E. B. He told him that despite shut down there was current in the line. They saw the switch which was off but when they wanted to know the fault, all of a sudden there was a flash and all the seven workmen were badly burnt and received injuries. R. S. Rana, Assistant Engineer (Electrical), H. P. P. W. D. , has deposed that due to electric flash in substation the workmen, including the Junior Engineer, were injured badly. From the statement of applicant, Ambika Sharma, it is clear that he was engaged in repairing the line and in continuation of that work due to sudden electric spark, he along with other workmen, was seriously injured. It is also the case of the respondents that the applicant had suffered burn injuries when he was on duty. According to the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General, the junior Engineer is not a workman. There is no force in the submission of the learned additional Advocate General.

(8.) IN State of Rajasthan v. Workmen's compensation Commissioner, 1988 FLR (56) 622, it has been held:

"two contentions have been urged before me by learned Deputy Government advocate. His first contention is that the injured being an Assistant Engineer in the workshop at Mahi Project cannot be deemed to be workman and his second contention is that compensation awarded to him is excessive looking to the injury received by him. In my opinion, there is no force in either of the contentions. According to the amended definition of workman the injured could certainly be deemed to be a workman inasmuch as he was employed in the workshop of the mahi Project as an Assistant Engineer, the learned Commissioner has held him to be so and I do not see any reason to take a different view. "

(9.) IN the present case, Ambika Sharma was engaged in repairing the electric lines when accident took place. It is not the case of the respondents that the accident has not taken place during the course of employment of applicant Ambika Sharma. The nomenclature of the job does not matter, what matters is whether person working on the job comes within the definition of workman? In my opinion, Ambika Sharma, applicant, was workman under respondents when he suffered burn injuries in the accident. Thus, the substantial question of law no. 1 is decided in favour of the applicant ambika Sharma and against respondents. Substantial Question of Law No. 2:

(10.) ACCIDENT took place on 6. 11. 2000. The compensation is to be determined in accordance with law existed on 6. 11. 2000. In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Val-sala K. , 2000 ACJ 5 (SC); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Khajuni Devi, (2002) 10 scc 567 and Satya Devi Sharma v. Megh pal 2002 ACJ 2104 (HP), it has been held that the compensation is to be determined according to the law prevalent on the date of accident.

(11.) IN section 4 by virtue of Act 46 of 2000 the words 'rupees two thousand' have been substituted by words 'rupees four thousand' w. e. f. 8. 12. 2000. On 6. 11. 2000 when the accident took place, maximum rs. 2,000 monthly wages of a workman could be taken into consideration for assessment of compensation. Applicant was drawing more than Rs. 2,000 per month on 6. 11. 2000, therefore, his monthly wages for determination of compensation can be taken into consideration Rs. 2,000 only under section 4 of the Act. It appears that the Commissioner has taken salary of the applicant Rs. 4,000 under section 4 for assessing the compensation whereas it should be Rs. 2,000 per month. The applicant has suffered 60 per cent plus 20 per cent permanent disability vide Exh. PW1/d. The applicant was 44 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, in his case factor of 172. 52 is applicable. The monthly wages of the applicant under section 4 shall be deemed to be Rs. 2,000, therefore, in view of 80 per cent disability, the applicant is entitled to compensation amounting to 172. 52 x Rs. 960 (80 per cent of 60 per cent wages) = Rs. 1,65,619. The applicant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of adjudication which is the date of award. In National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed, 2007 ACJ 845 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme court has held:

" (9) Interest is payable under section 4-A (3) if there is default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due. The question of liability under section 4-A was dealt with by this court in Maghar singh v. Jashwant Singh, 1997 ACJ 517 (SC). By Amending Act 30 of 1995, section 4-A of the Act was amended, inter alia, fixing the minimum rate of interest to be simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent. In the instant case, the accident took place after the amendment and, therefore, the rate of 12 per cent as fixed by the High Court cannot be faulted. But the period as fixed by it is wrong. The starting point is on completion of one month from the date on which it fell due. Obviously, it cannot be the date of accident. Since no indication is there as to when it becomes due, it has to be taken to be the date of adjudication of the claim. This appears to be so because section 4-A (1) prescribes that compensation under section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. The com-pensation becomes due on the basis of adjudication of the claim made. The adjudication under section 4 in some cases involves the assessment of loss of earning capacity by a qualified medical practitioner. Unless adjudication is done, question of compensation becoming due does not arise. The position becomes clearer on a reading of sub-section (2) of section 4-A. It provides that provisional payment to the extent of admitted liability has to be made when employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed. The crucial expression is 'falls due'. Significantly, the legislature

has not used the expression 'from the date of accident'. Unless there is an adjudication, the question of an amount falling due does not arise. " (12.) IN the present case, Commissioner has adjudicated the compensation vide impugned order on 3. 4. 2002, therefore, on compensation amounting to Rs. 1,65,619 the applicant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of adjudication which is the date of award. Commissioner has awarded excess compensation to the applicant and, therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded requires interference. Accordingly, it is held that applicant is entitled to Rs. 1,65,619 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum w. e. f. 3. 4. 2002 till payment. The substantial question of law No. 2 is decided accordingly. (13.) NO other point was urged. (14.) IN view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. It is held that the applicant is entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 1,65,619 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum w. e. f. 3. 4. 2002 till payment. No costs. Appeal partly allowed.