JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.10.93 passed by the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur, in W.C. Case No. 16/89 whereby the claim petition filed by L.Rs. of deceased Shri Doonga Gameti was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal 5 are thus; -that respondents 1 and 2 are the owners of the truck No. RSM 1339. They employed Shri Doonga son of Chaina Gameti aged 25 years as Driver on the truck owned by them at the monthly salary of Rs. 1000/- per month. This truck was insured with respondent No. 3. On 11.2.89 after having loaded pink marble in the truck from Babarmal Mines, the driver of the truck 10 Shri Doonga started for Makrana via Nathdawara, destination where marble stones were to be delivered. One Asha Gameti was cleaner and as such shri Doonga and Asha both were the employees of respondents 1 and 2 and during the course of employment Shri Doonga was driving truck, when the truck reached near to Nathdawara ghata (slope) it collided with another truck bearing No. RRJ 3189 which was also proceeding the same directions, resulting thereby that the driver of the truck No. RSM 1339, Shri Doonga and cleaner Asha Gameti both sustained severe injuries and succumbed to injuries instantaneously. First Information Report (F.I.R.) Ex. 1 was lodged with police station Nathdawara by Head Constable Shri Rodsingh of said police station, stating the facts which he found on the spot of accident. In the FIR, it was stated that one person died and the driver of the truck RSM 1339 was crushed and entangled between steering and body of the truck and he was breathing last. The another person was found lying road side with the fracture of leg. One more person was injured. Thus injured was taken to Hospital at Nathdawara. It was specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. that driver of the truck RSM 1339 was crushed and entangled between body and steering of the truck and other was found lying dead as driver and other person both were crushed in between the body and steering of truck. 3. The appellant No. 1 is the widow, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 daughter and son, appellant Nos. 3. The appellant No. 1 is the widow, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 daughter and son, appellant Nos. 4 and 5 are parents of deceased Shri Doonga Gameti and as such, they filed a claim petition for compensation before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur, (hereinafter for short `the Commissioner') claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 86,764/- along with penalty and interest against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who are owners of the truck involved in accident and against respondent No. 3 -the insurer of the truck. On the relevant date of accident, the said truck was validly insured with the respondent No. 3. Despite service of the notice of the claims petition, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex parte. However respondent No. 3 filed its written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner tried the case. 4. Appellant examined Smt. Pyari widow of deceased as P.W. 1, Chaina father of deceased as P.W. 2, and filed copy of the F.I.R. Ex. 1, post-mortem Report of deceased Doonga Ex. 2, Site Inspection Map and Note Ex. 3. In rebuttal respondent did not lead any evidence. 5. The learned Commissioner did not frame any issues arising out of pleadings of parties. It appears that parties have not joined the issue. Since respondents 1 and 2 who are owners of the vehicle involved in accident, did not join the issue. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 3 Insurance company, a plea was taken that deceased Shri Doonga himself was negligent for causing accident and as such he himself being (sic) tortfeasor, his legal representatives cannot claim compensation for the tortious act of the deceased himself. The respondent No. 3 specifically admitted that at the relevant time, Truck No. RSM 1339 was insured with it. However, respondents 1 and 2 the owners of the truck did not intimate factum of said the accident immediately to respondent No. 3 insurer as required under the existing clause in the policy. As there exists a clause in the policy to the effect that as and when accident takes place the owner of the vehicle will intimate to the insurer and since the owner of the vehicle failed to intimate the factum of the accident to the insurer- respondent No. 3, therefore, the owner of the vehicle has violated the condition of the policy. 6. 6. P.W. 1 Smt. Pyari, widow of deceased stated on oath before the learned Commissioner that Shri Doonga was her husband and he was engaged as a driver on the truck at the salary of Rs. 1000/- per month. She further stated that while he was driving the said truck two years prior to making the statement before the commissioner, She stated that her husband met accident near Nathdawara Bus Stand and due to the said accident he died. She also stated that she along with her daughter, son and parents in law were wholly dependent on the income of her husband. She has placed on record F.I.R. Ex. 1, post-mortem Report of deceased Shri Doonga Ex. 2 and Site Inspection Map and Site Inspection Note Ex. 3. She also stated that her husband had driving licence for driving the vehicle. A similar statement was made by P.W. 2 Chaina, the father of deceased. He stated on oath that his son Doonga was driver on the truck owned by respondent Sukhlal Kalal resident of Dakan Kotda and used to be paid Rs. 1000/- per month salary at the time of accidental death. The age of his son was 25 years. He further stated that his son was carrying marble in the truck and while driving the truck from Babarmal Mines to Makrana near Nathdawara Bus Stand ghata (slope), the truck turn turtled and the marble stones which were loaded in the truck broke the cabin of the truck and his son, who was driving the truck was crushed due to marble stone and breaking of the cabin. While he was being taken to hospital he succumbed to injuries on the way. The cleaner of the truck also succumbed to injuries. He stated that all the claimants were wholly dependant on the income of the deceased. A specific question was put to this witness by the respondent in cross examination that his son was not driver but cleaner of the said truck which met accident. This witness denied the fact of his son being cleaner and he specifically stated that he was the driver of the truck which met accident. By adducing these evidence, claimants discharged the initial burden to prove the fact of accident, employment and the monthly salary which deceased used to get from respondents No. 1 and 2. This witness denied the fact of his son being cleaner and he specifically stated that he was the driver of the truck which met accident. By adducing these evidence, claimants discharged the initial burden to prove the fact of accident, employment and the monthly salary which deceased used to get from respondents No. 1 and 2. The facts pleaded in the claim petition were not denied or traversed by the owner of the vehicle and insurer came with the case that the accident took place by rash and negligent act of the deceased himself. This fact further finds established and corroborated by the F.I.R. Ex. 1, post-mortem Report Ex. 2 and Site Inspection Map and Site Inspection (sic) Note Ex. 3. 7. It is settled position of law that the claim case for compensation before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner or the Tribunal are tried by way of summary proceedings and strict Rule of Pleadings and Evidence Act are neither attracted nor made applicable, as such, the claim petitions are so not tried alike the civil suits. 8. In Union of India v. T.R. Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "The Evidence Act has no application to enquiries conducted by Tribunals, even though they may be judicial in character. The law requires that such Tribunals should observe rules of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry and if they do so, their decision is not liable to be impeached on the ground that the procedure followed was not in accordance with that, which obtains in a Court of Law." 9. In my considered opinion from the material placed on record, the appellant claimants established the fact that on 11.2.89 while Shri Doonga was in the course of employment of the employer respondents 1 and 2 by driving the Truck No. RSM 1339 owned by respondent employer met with accident near Nathdawara Bus Stand Ghata (slope) and sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed to injuries. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 was specifically asked with regard to ownership of the vehicle, the employment of deceased with them and monthly salary, which the deceased used to be paid. Learned counsel did not dispute these facts. Under these circumstances, in my considered opinion, the claimants have established their claim. Learned counsel did not dispute these facts. Under these circumstances, in my considered opinion, the claimants have established their claim. The learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner erred in dismissing the claims petition filed by the claimants. The findings arrived at by the learned Commissioner cannot be said to be on proper appreciation of evidence and thus is perverse and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, I hold that Shri Doonga son of Chaina Gameti died while in the employment and during the course of employment of employer respondents 1 and 2, and, therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation. The learned Commissioner failed to compute the compensation. It has been established that at the relevant time, age of the deceased was 25 years and he used to be paid Rs. 1000/- as salary per month by his employer respondents 1 and 2 and according to the Schedule IV appended to Section 4-(b) of the Norkmen's Compensation Act by applying the factor of 216.91 the compensation comes to Rs. 86,764/-. The claimants are entitled for the interest as envisaged under section 4-A(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act at the rate of interest 6% per annum as per the provisions applicable on the relevant date of accident. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Award impugned dated 11.10.93 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur, is set aside and the claim petition filed by the respondent claimants is allowed and a compensation of Rs. 86,764/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 27th March, 1989 till the date of its realisation. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Since the vehicle involved in the accident was under valid insurance on the date of accident, therefore, the respondent No. 3-Insurer United Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit the amount of compensation along with interest before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur, within a period of two months. No order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******