IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO.No. 601 of 2008. Date of Decision: 17.5.2011. _______________________________________________ New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ….Appellant. Versus. Smt. Nikki Devi and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?. No. For the petitioner: Mr.B.M.Chauhan, Advocate. For Respondent-1to5: Mr. Manoj Thakur, Advocate For Respondent-6: Mr.Dinesh Thakur, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company-respondent No.3 before the Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act challenging the award granting a sum of Rs. 3,14,880/- as compensation for the death of Roshan Lal, who was employed as a conductor on the truck which met with an accident. The Commissioner on the evidence on record and especially on settled issue No.1 held that the deceased was working as a conductor on the truck (Balker) No. HP-24-A-2482 which met with an accident on 31.10.2004 and sustained fatal injuries. On the determined wages of the conductor, Rs.3,000/- per month was fixed as the dependency Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?.yes. 2 factor on the evidence of PW1 Nikki Devi mother of the deceased, who stated that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and he was the only bread earner of the family as her husband was disabled. In this appeal two questions of law have been raised: 1. Whether the learned Commissioner below has erred in deciding issue No.4 by holding that the deceased Roshan Lal died during the course of employment of the owner/respondent No.6 in the accident? Have not the learned Commissioner below gravely erred in totally ignoring the reply of the owner of the vehicle who has completely denied the ownership of employee and employer and has specifically denied that late Sh. Roshan Lal had never been engaged by him as cleaner in the offending vehicle? Have not the learned Commissioner below erred in totally mis-appreciating and wrongly construing the evidence produced on record to this effect?. 2. Whether the learned Commissioner below has erred in directing the appellant/insurance company to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident. Are not the findings of the learned Commissioner perverse in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case National Insurance Company Vs. Musabir Alhmad 2007 Vol-II SCC 349. 2. Adverting to the second question first, this Court in Sita Ram Vs. Satvinder Singh and another, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1110, has held that it is the liability of the Insurance Company to pay interest from the date of the accident. The decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Musabir Ahmad, 2007 (2) SCC 349 has been considered by this Court. On the first question, learned counsel vehemently urges that there was no proof on record of the case that the deceased had sustained fatal injuries during the course of his employment. In fact, the submission is that he had not sustained 3 such injuries at all. The pleadings raise a number of grounds in the preliminary objections. It is urged that driver Hardayal Singh did not possess a valid driving license as on 31.10.2004, there was no valid registration certificate or insurance and fitness certificate of this vehicle and the compensation claimed was exorbitant. The pleading then proceeds that Roshan Lal was not employed as a cleaner with the vehicle. On these pleadings, no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company but the Commissioner finds that registration certificate Ext.RW2/A, copy of insurance Ext.RW-2/B, carriage permit Ext.RW2/C and driving license Ext.RW2/D have been proved on record. In order to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the deceased was actually employed as a Cleaner on the truck, the Commissioner relies upon the evidence of RW1 Hardayal Singh, who has stated in no uncertain terms that he was the driver of the Balker and that the deceased was employed as a conductor thereon. There is nothing in his cross-examination to show that the deceased was not employed as such. To similar effect is the evidence of PW1 Nikki Devi mother of the deceased and also PW2 Parkash Chand, who is related to the deceased and has stated so in no uncertain terms. These findings of fact have been arrived at by the court below on evidence and I am not inclined to upset these findings when there is no evidence produced by the appellant herein contrary to what has been established. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. May 17, 2011(R) 4