FAO (WCA) 162 of 2008. 19.12.2008 Present: Mr. Deepak Bhasin, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Mr. K.D.Sood, counsel for respondent No. 6. This is the Insurance Company’s appeal against the award passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Sub Divisional Magistrate), Solan, Himachal Pradesh, granting compensation to the respondents who are the dependents of the deceased workman. Two substantial questions of law have been raised by the appellant for determination, namely: “2. Whether the Commissioner can assess the compensation by taking the monthly incoime other than the one being paid by the employer? Or in other words whether anything being paid in excess of income towards bhatta can be included in the income part of the workman for the purpose of calculating the Compensation when the Act is silent on the point? 3. Whether the learned Commissioner was justified in imposing the interest from the date of accident and coercive action for recovering the award amount upon the insurance -2- company in the absence of any contract or statutory provision empowering him to do so.” On the first question, all that need be said is that Bhatta has been rightly included and awarded. (See FAO (WCA) No. 168 of 2007, decided on 29th August, 2007, titled as Manager, Tibetan Staff Mess, Tibetan Secretariat v. Farman Ali and others, and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Guddo and others, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1181). On the second question, the matter already stands decided by this Court in Sita Ram v. Satvinder Singh and another, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1110. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s) shall stand dismissed. December 19, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.