RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. - (1.) Mr. M. K. Agrawal, Advo cate, holding brief of Mr. R. B. Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellant. None for the respondents.
(2.) THIS is insurer's appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compen sation Act, 1923 against the Award dated 16-08-2004 passed by Commis sioner for Workmen Compensation and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haldwani (Nainital) in W. C. C. No. 56 of 2003. The respondents/claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 4,27,1407 - for the death of Rajesh Kumar alias Boby, who was working as Cleaner on truck no. UPE 6269 and died on 03-06-2003 on account of the injuries sus tained by him during the course of his employment when the said truck dashed with other Tanker no. PB 11-1479. The claimants further pleaded that the deceased Rajesh Kumar. alias Boby was getting salary of Rs. 3500/-and allowance of Rs. 1000/- per month. Respondent no. 1 in the claim petition i. e. the employer admitted that deceased Rajesh Kumar alias Boby was in her employment as Cleaner and he died during the course of his employ ment in the accident. The insurer de nied the factual averments made in the claim petition but admitted the fact that the truck no. UPE 6269 was insured with them.
(3.) THE Commissioner for Workmen Compensation on the evidence led by the parties held that Rajesh Kumar alias Boby was working as a Cleaner on truck no. UPE 6269; he died on ac count of the injuries sustained by him in the accident on 03-06-2003; that his death was during the course of his em ployment; and the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Finding the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased unreliable, the Commissioner assessed his income at Rs. 2105/- per month on the basis of the minimum wages as per Government Order at the relevant time. As the age of the de ceased was 27 years at the time of the accident, the Commissioner for Work men Compensation assessed the com pensation at Rs. 2,24,782/ -. THE Com missioner also awarded interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of compen sation. The sole ground pressed into service in this appeal filed at the behest of the Insurance Company is that the Commissioner for Workmen Compen sation has erred in saddling the liabil ity of interest also on the Insurance Company. The learned counsel further submitted that the Commissioner has erred in awarding the interest @ 12% per annum.;