1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.956 of 2010. National Insurance Company Limited, Jaipur VERSUS Ramesh son of Shri Mangi Lal Gurjar and Another Date of Order :::: March 31st 2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Praveen Jain, Counsel for the appellant Ms. Sonia Shandilya, Counsel for caveator-respondent No.1 *** By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award dated 29.01.2010 passed by the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur-I. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the injured-claimant was an employee of the respondent No.2 on vehicle (truck) bearing No.RJ-14-1G-1594, whereas the accident in which the claimant was injured was in respect of another truck bearing No.RJ-14-G-9761 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the injured received the injuries during the course of his employment and the appellant not being the insurer of the accidented truck is not liable. 2 So far as the above question is concerned, the learned Commissioner while deciding Issue No.1 has come to the conclusion that while it is correct that the injured was employed on truck bearing No.RJ-14-1G-1594 owned by the respondent No.2 the fact is that the said truck broke-down while on way from Kota to Shahpura in District Jaipur near Tonk and the claimant being a Khalasi employed on the insured truck proceeded to Jaipur to get spare-parts from Jaipur for repairing the said truck and while returning he met with an accident and received injuries. No doubt the claimant was traveling in another vehicle bearing No.RJ-14-G-9761. The mere fact that the injured was travelling in another vehicle would not deprive the claimant, who had gone to Jaipur to get the spare-parts for repair of the insured vehicle, the truck of the employer on which he was employed bearing No.RJ-14-1G-1594, which fact has been believed by the learned Commissioner, would not make any difference as the accident in so far as the workman was concerned he had received injuries while being in the employment of the insured on whose vehicle he was on employment and which was insured with the appellant. It is, thus, amply proved on record that the claimant received injuries during the course of his employment while returning from Jaipur with the necessary spare-parts for repairing the truck on which he was employed as Khalasi. 3 In the facts and circumstances, so far as the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned that being a finding of fact, which calls for no interference in this miscellaneous appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimant had received three injuries, which as per the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant were simple in nature and, therefore, the award of compensation is highly excessive. So far as the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, there is on record the evidence in the form of the treatment and discharge tickets, injury report and the disability certificate issued to the claimant, which have been relied upon by the Commissioner. From the aforesaid record, it is amply proved that the injured-claimant received a fracture of the left fibula as well as injuries on the knee apart from other injuries. On the basis of examination of the aforesaid injuries the disability certificate, Exhibit-9 has been issued to the claimant, wherein as per the opinion of the doctor the disability of 27.5% has been found on account of the aforesaid injuries received in the said accident. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, it is amply proved on record that the claimant received injuries, as mentioned in the injury report and the corresponding disability 4 certificate certifying the fact of the disability of the claimant. However, I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the award of interest of @ 12% per annum is excessive looking to the present rate of interest since the accident, in question had occurred on 25.06.2008. In the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to accept this appeal to the limited extent that the award of interest is reduced from 12% per annum to 9% per annum. Subject to the above, the miscellaneous appeal and the stay application stand disposed of. The excess amount, which the appellant has deposited on the basis of the interest calculated @ 12% per annum as per the award passed by the learned Commissioner shall be recalculated @ 9% per annum, as awarded by this Court and the excess amount would be refunded to the appellant. (Dalip Singh), J. Ashok/