Rakesh Tiwari, Anil Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) Om Prakash employed as driver of mini bus no. UP-53/BT-2571 was injured in an accident on 30.10.2011 and succumbed to his injuries on 03.11.2011. His dependents claimants-respondents filed W.C.C. No. 2 of 2012 before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Gorakhpur claiming compensation of Rs. 5,19,950/- for his death. The claim petition was contested by the appellant insurance company by filing its written statement denying the accident and the claim in totality, whereas the owner of the mini bus with which the alleged accident is said to have taken place admitted the factum of accident and death of Om Prakash as a result thereof.
(2.) The Employee's Compensation Commissioner allowed the claim application awarding a compensation of Rs. 5,12,849/- along with 12% interest w.e.f. 30.11.2011 i.e. from one month after the date of accident directing the insurance company to satisfy the award. Aggrieved this First Appeal From Order has been filed challenging the impugned award dated 28.01.2013.
(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no statutory liability on the insurance company to pay interest on the compensation awarded. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Harshad Bhai Amrut Bhai Modhiya and another, 2006(2) TAC 321 (SC) and in P.J. Narayan v. Union of India and others, 2006 (5) SCC 200 it is stated that the Employee's Compensation Commissioner has awarded 12% interest from one month after the date of the accident which is fully illegal. It is lastly submitted that no issues had been framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner which is in violation of Rule 28 and 32 of the workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924, as such the Commissioner has erroneously relied upon the written statement of the owner of the vehicle in concluding that deceased was employed as driver, overlooking the fact that there was no evidence on the record to corroborate the pleadings made by the vehicle owner who also did not step in the witness box to prove the averments of the written statement. It is stated that issues were required to be framed as insured vehicle was not involved in the accident and the accident did not occur during the course of alleged employment.;