THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.966 of 2003 JUDGMENT: N. Shamservali, son of respondents 1 and 2 and husband of respondent No.3 was employed as a driver with the fourth respondent to work on a vehicle bearing No.AP- 04-8268. Accident occurred on 20.10.1999, when the driver was on duty and he died on the spot at Settigunta of Kadapa District. Cr.No.120 of 1999 was registered by the Police Station Koduru under Section 304-A I.P.C. Respondents 1 to 3 ﬁled W.C. Case No.13 of 2001 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur (for short ‘the Commissioner’) claiming compensation on account of the death of Shamservali. It is pleaded that the deceased was aged 21 years by the time he died and that he was earning Rs.2000/- per month. It is pleaded that there exists a valid insurance coverage at the time of accident. The fourth respondent remained ex parte. The case was resisted by the appellant alone. They have pleaded that they doubted the existence of relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and the fourth respondent. It was also pleaded that the deceased was not a driver at all and that there did not exist valid driving licence. They have also disputed the age and wages of the deceased. Through order dated 16.09.2002, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.2,22,710/-. He has also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident, in case, the amount is not deposited within thirty days. The appellant feels aggrieved by the said order. Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and there is no representation for respondents 1 to 3. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, AW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 comprising of FIR, Inquest Report, Post- mortem Report, Legal notice and Acknowledgement were filed. No oral evidence was adduced by the appellant. Only the Insurance Policy was filed as Ex.B1. The appellant disputes the very profession of the deceased. It is stated that according to the enquiries conducted by the appellant, the deceased was a daily wage worker and not a driver. However in the First Information Report, Post-mortem Report and other records, the deceased was shown as driver of the vehicle. The appellant could have examined the fourth respondent, in case, they doubted the engagement of the deceased as driver with the fourth respondent. Further, the so-called report of the investigation caused by the appellant was not made part of the record. Hence, the plea of the appellant that the deceased was not a driver and that he was not employed with the fourth respondent cannot be accepted. The Commissioner has applied the relevant parameters pertaining to age and wages and has determined the compensation and no serious flaw in it is pointed out. One aspect, which needs to be taken into account is that interest at 9% per annum was awarded by the Commissioner from the date of accident, in case, the compensation is not deposited within thirty days of the order. The same does not accord with the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The liability to pay interest arises at the most from the date of ﬁling of the W.C. case and in the ordinary course it is only after expiry of 30 days from the date of order. Further rate of interest in the matters of this nature is only 7% per annum. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed upholding the award in other respects but modifying the rate of interest to 7% per annum and directing that interest shall become payable from 30 days from date of the order, in case, the compensation was not deposited within the said period. There shall be no order as to costs. L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt.03.12.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.966 of 2003 Dt.03.12.2011