JUDGMENT : S.MANU, J. Claimant in E.C.C No.34 of 2021 on the files of the Industrial Tribunal and Employees Compensation Commissioner has filed this M.F.A dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the Commissioner by the impugned order. 2. The appellant is employed as a driver under the 1 st respondent. On 26.04.2019, while he was driving a bus of the 1 st respondent bearing Registration No.KL-15A-321, it collided with another bus owned by the 1 st respondent and he sustained severe injuries. He was admitted to a private Hospital on 26.04.2019 and was subjected to different surgical procedures. He was discharged on 03.05.2019 but was again admitted on 07.05.2019 for a surgery. He was discharged on the same day and later again underwent a surgical procedure on 14.05.2019. Yet another surgery procedure was done on 23.05.2019. Still later on 15.06.2020 he was admitted for another procedure and was discharged on 17.06.2020. The appellant claimed that his monthly wages was Rs.28,000/-. He sought a total compensation of Rs.6,57,174/-. 3. The 1 st respondent admitted employer employee relationship in its written statement filed before the Commissioner. The accident was also admitted. The KSRTC contended that the vehicle was validly insured with the 2 nd respondent and therefore the 2 nd respondent was liable to pay compensation. The 2 nd respondent admitted insurance coverage. However, it denied employer employee relationship. 4. The learned Commissioner framed four issues for consideration. The applicant was examined as AW1 and Exhibits A1 to A8 were marked on his side. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The learned Commissioner on appreciation of the pleadings and evidence concluded that there was employer employee relationship and the appellant suffered injuries arising out of employment during the course of his employment under the 1 st respondent. The learned Commissioner held that the appellant was entitled for compensation. However, the learned Commissioner, in paragraph no.8 of the impugned order, recorded that though the applicant claimed that he was drawing a monthly wages of Rs.28,000/-, in the absence of any document to prove the same and also in view of the Central Government notification dated 31.05.2010, the monthly wages of the appellant can be reckoned only as Rs.8000/- for the purpose of calculating compensation. The compensation was accordingly fixed at Rs.1,87,764/-. 5. The appellant had produced Exhibit A7 (series) medical bills before the learned Commissioner. The compensation was accordingly fixed at Rs.1,87,764/-. 5. The appellant had produced Exhibit A7 (series) medical bills before the learned Commissioner. The total treatment expenses as per Exhibit A7 was Rs.5,31,395/-. The learned Commissioner held that the appellant was entitled for the treatment expenses also. 6. In the instant appeal, the main ground of challenge and also the substantial question of law raised on behalf of the appellant is as to whether the finding of the learned Commissioner that the monthly wages of the appellant was liable to be reckoned as Rs.8,000/- instead of his actual monthly wages is proper or not. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on an order of this Court in Chairman and Managing Director, KSEB v. Sudhish P.S , [ 2026 (2) KLT 621 ]. In the said decision, this Court held as under:- “33. The Act is unquestionably a social welfare legislation providing for remedies to employees who sustain injuries out of the employment and during the course of the employment to get adequate compensation. If an employee who draws monthly wages at a higher rate than that is notified by the Central Government under S.4(1B) is deprived of compensation proportionate to his actual monthly wages, it cannot be said that just compensation was provided. 34. If the provisions of S.4(1B) and S.5 of the Act are construed harmoniously it can be certainly held that the provisions of S.4(1B) enable the Government to fix the monthly wages from time to time in order to ensure that employees/dependants seeking compensation under the Act would be entitled for reasonable compensation even if they fail to adduce reliable evidence regarding the actual monthly wages. In various sectors of employment in our country, employees are engaged under diverse arrangements. Large section of the workforce in our country is engaged in unorganised sectors. In many of the employments in the unorganised sectors, there may not be any proper system of keeping records regarding the wages. Hence in many situations, the employee/dependents may not be in a position to provide authentic evidence to the Commissioner regarding the wages in the peculiar nature of engagement. Under such circumstances, the Commissioners can rely on the amount notified by the Central Government under S.4(1B) to calculate the compensation. 35. Hence in many situations, the employee/dependents may not be in a position to provide authentic evidence to the Commissioner regarding the wages in the peculiar nature of engagement. Under such circumstances, the Commissioners can rely on the amount notified by the Central Government under S.4(1B) to calculate the compensation. 35. Nevertheless, when the applicant before the Commissioner or the opposite parties adduces evidence proving the actual monthly wages of the injured employee, in view of the provisions of S.5 of the Act, the Commissioner can determine the compensation on the basis of the actual monthly wages proved in evidence. But in view of the object of S.4(1B), providing for periodical notification of monthly wages by the Central Government, the amount notified shall be considered as the basic minimum. Just and proportionate compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act can be awarded even if the monthly wages proved before the Commissioner is higher than the amount notified by the Government. If the purpose of incorporating S.4(1B) can be understood as above, there will not be any conflict between the two provisions. Such a construction would definitely advance the object of the Act. While interpreting two different provisions of an enactment, in reference to which incongruity is alleged, endeavour of the Court shall be to construe the provisions harmoniously, giving effect to both.” 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that Exhibit A3 salary certificate produced before the learned Commissioner would show that the appellant was drawing monthly wages at the rate of Rs.28,000/-. He submitted that the finding of the learned Commissioner that there was no evidence to prove the monthly wages of the appellant is incorrect. He contended that the learned Commissioner overlooked Exhibit A3 salary certificate while recording such a finding. He also submitted that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the judgment cited, the compensation is liable to be re-fixed, reckoning the monthly wages of the appellant as Rs.28,000/-. 8. The appellant has filed I.A No.2 of 2026 for producing some additional documents. The additional documents produced show that the appellant incurred an expense of Rs.84,561/- for implant removal conducted on 08.12.2022. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the said medical expense is also liable to be granted to the appellant. 9. 8. The appellant has filed I.A No.2 of 2026 for producing some additional documents. The additional documents produced show that the appellant incurred an expense of Rs.84,561/- for implant removal conducted on 08.12.2022. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the said medical expense is also liable to be granted to the appellant. 9. Heard the learned Counsel for the KSRTC and also the learned Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company. The learned Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company contended that the additional documents produced were not available during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Commissioner and veracity of those documents is a matter to be examined. It is noted that according to the appellant he underwent implant removal procedure on 08.12.2022. The impugned order was passed on 26.08.2022. Therefore, the claim now raised before this Court by filing I.A No.2 of 2026, is for a procedure/treatment underwent after conclusion of the proceedings before the learned Commissioner. 10. The records of the proceedings are not available before this Court. It is not clear as to whether Annexure A3 was sufficient to prove that the monthly wages of the appellant was Rs.28,000/- as claimed in the claim petition filed before the learned Commissioner. It is also to be verified whether the finding of the learned Commissioner that there was no material to show the monthly wages of the appellant was given overlooking Annexure A3. Since the appellant is raising an additional claim also before this Court and re-appreciation of the materials brought on record is required, I find it appropriate to remit this matter for fresh consideration by the learned Commissioner. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and remit the matter for fresh consideration by the learned Commissioner. It will be open to the appellant to amend the claim petition and seek additional compensation for the implant removal procedure underwent on 08.12.2022 by producing sufficient documents and adducing additional evidence. The substantial question of law raised in this appeal is answered in favour of the appellant in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Chairman and Managing Director, KSEB v. Sudhish P.S , [ 2026 (2) KLT 621 ]. The Commissioner erred in refusing to take into account the actual monthly wages, to determine the compensation. 11. The Commissioner erred in refusing to take into account the actual monthly wages, to determine the compensation. 11. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Chairman and Managing Director, KSEB v. Sudhish P.S [ 2026 (2) KLT 621 ], the learned Commissioner shall take into account the actual monthly wages of the appellant for the purpose of determining the compensation while passing fresh orders. Since the claim was lodged in the year 2021, the learned Commissioner shall pass fresh order as directed above within a period of four months. 12. The Registry is directed to return the original documents produced along with the I.A No.2 of 2026 to the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appeal is disposed of as above.