JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - These two appeals have been filed by the Insurer. 2. Claimant respondent No. 1 filed an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act (in short, the "Act") before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Cut tack (in short, the "Commissioner") claiming Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for injuries sustained by him in an accident arising out of and in course of his employment. The accident occurred on April 12, 1993. It was claimed that the claimant was working as a Helper under present respondent No. 2 in a Truck bearing registration number OR-04-9596. It is claimed that due to the accident, the claimant sustained several injuries including fracture of left knee, left hand, injuries to neck and other multiple injuries. It was claimed that he was receiving Rs. 900/- per month as wages excluding allowance of Rs, 15/- per day towards fooding. 3. The owner in his written statement while admitting about the employment, the accident and the injuries, contended that the liability, if any, should be met by the Insurance Company as the vehicle had been validly insured. It was also pleaded that the owner himself had already been paid the claimrelating to the damage in respect of the vehicle by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company in its written statement generally denied the allegations made in the claim application. 4. The Commissioner on consideration of materials on record found that the claimant was a workman under present respondent No. 2 and had sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in course of employment. Assessing the loss of earning capacity at 25 per cent and fixing the age at 24, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 24,578/- and directed the Insurance Company to pay the same. Against the aforesaid award, Misc. Appeal No. 50871998 has been filed. 5. It appears that thereafter, since the awarded amount was not deposited, a proceeding was initiated and the Commissioner passed an order dated August 17, 1998 directing payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident, that is to say, April 12, 1993, till date of payment and further directed that in case the aforesaid direction is not complied within seven days, proceeding as contemplated u/s 31 of the Act shall be initiated against the Insurer. Against the aforesaid order, Misc. Appeal No. 509/1998 has been preferred. Against the aforesaid order, Misc. Appeal No. 509/1998 has been preferred. Both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenged the finding of the Commissioner relating to employment and to the effect that the injuries were sustained by the workman in an accident arising out of and in course of employment. The aforesaid findings are based on discussion of relevant evidence on record. No contrary material has been adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company to indicate that the claimant was not a workman, nor to disprove the evidence to the effect that the injuries were sustained in an accident arising out of and in course of employment. The finding relating to loss of earning capacity is also based on discussion of relevant materials on record. Since there is no legal infirmity in the findings of the Commissioner on these aspects, there is hardly any scope of interfere with such findings in an appeal u/s 30 of the Act. 7. The main contention of the appellant revolves round the question of liability of the Insurance Company. It is contended that the driver of the truck did not have a valid driving licence as the original licence purported to have been issued was a fake one. It is contended that since original licence was a fake one, any subsequent renewal thereof before the Licensing Authority in Orissa cannot be considered to be a valid driving licence. For the aforesaid purpose, the appellant had relied upon a report of the Investigating Officer appointed by the Insurance Company itself. 8. The Commissioner has rightly negatived such a contention as the report of the Investigator cannot be considered to be sacrosanct. The Investigation has not been examined. His report is not a public document so as to be admissible as such without any proof. Moreover, even assuming that the original driving licence was fake, there is no denial of the fact that subsequently the driving licence has been renewed. The Investigation has not been examined. His report is not a public document so as to be admissible as such without any proof. Moreover, even assuming that the original driving licence was fake, there is no denial of the fact that subsequently the driving licence has been renewed. It has been held by this Court that even if the original driving licence is fake, if it is renewed, it cannot be said that the owner had committed a breach of the condition of the policy by permitting such driver to drive the vehicle, as the owner would not be in a position to know that the original driving licence was fake. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hadiya Gouda and Others, . 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decisions reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Chand and others, ; 1998 (85) CLT 41 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Aska, Ganjam v. Uma Charan Bisov and M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore Vs. Smt. Sharada Adyanathaya and Others, in support of his contention that if the vehicle was being driven by a driver without valid licence, the Insurer would not be liable. The decisions relied upon by the counsel for the appellant relate to cases where there was no driving licence at all and in the facts and circumstances of those cases, it was held that the owner had committed breach of the policy by permitting a driver without licence to drive the vehicle. For the aforesaid reasons, Misc. Appeal No. 508/1998 is liable to be dismissed. 10. Misc. Appeal No. 509/1998 relates to the question of payment of interest, since the Insurer did not comply with the direction of the Commissioner. It cannot be said that the direction for payment of interest was illegal or without jurisdiction. However, the judgment itself having been passed on April 22, 1998 permitting the Insurance Company to deposit the amount within thirty days from the date of judgment, there was no justification for directing payment of interest for a period prior to the expiry of thirty days of the date of judgment. However, the judgment itself having been passed on April 22, 1998 permitting the Insurance Company to deposit the amount within thirty days from the date of judgment, there was no justification for directing payment of interest for a period prior to the expiry of thirty days of the date of judgment. Therefore, the direction regarding payment of interest from the date of accident is modified and instead, it is directed that the liability to pay interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum, as directed by the Commissioner in his order dated August 17, 1998, shall commence from the expiry of thirty days from the date of judgment, that is to say with effect from May 23, 1998. The order dated August 17, 1998 passed by the Commissioner is modified to this extent. 11. It appears that the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs. 24,578/-, that is to say, the principal awarded amount, on October 12, 1998. which has been subsequently invested in a fixed deposit. Therefore, the liability to pay interest on the awarded amount shall cease with effect from October 12, 1998. Misc. Appeal No. 50871998 is dismissed and Misc. Appeal No. 50971998 is disposed of subject to aforesaid directions. The awarded amount shall be disbursed to claimant-respondent No. 1 along with the accrued interest. The interest payable on the awarded amount as per the above direction should be paid by August 31, 1999. There will be no order as to costs.