M. M. DAS, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgment and award passed under Workmen's Compensation act, 1923, M. A. No. 555 of 2002 has been preferred by the insurance company and f. A. O. No. 128 of 2002 has been preferred by dependants of the deceased workman. ( 2 ) THE appellants in F. A. O. No. 128 of 2002 filed an application numbered as WC case No. 730-D of 2000 as legal heirs/ dependants of the deceased Raj Kishore singh, who succumbed to the injuries on 12. 11. 2000 sustained in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 6. 11. 2000. It transpires from the facts of the case that on 6. 11. 2000 at about 10 p. m. in the night when the deceased was checking the back wheel of the truck bearing No. OIG 2462 after parking it on the extreme left of the road on the National Highway No. 5 near chhatia, another truck dashed against him and ran over a portion of the body and legs of the deceased. As a consequence he sustained compound fractures of the legs, ribs, waist and other injuries and was admitted to the SCB Medical Hospital at Cuttack where he expired on 12. 11. 2000. Claimants stated in their application that at the time of accident the deceased was under the employment of Kerala Transport Co. Ltd. and having died in an accident arising out of and in course of his employment and he being a workman is entitled to compensation under the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). It was claimed by the claimants that the deceased was receiving wage of rs. 3,000 per month besides food allowance of Rs. 15 per day and was working as a driver in the truck bearing No. OIG 2462 under the owner and was aged about 35 years at the time of his death. ( 3 ) MR. S. S. Rao, the learned counsel appearing for insurance company appellant in M. A. No. 555 of 2002 submitted that the appeal involves substantial questions of law as required under section 30 of the act. ( 3 ) MR. S. S. Rao, the learned counsel appearing for insurance company appellant in M. A. No. 555 of 2002 submitted that the appeal involves substantial questions of law as required under section 30 of the act. He contended that the fact that there is no record available in the concerned police station, i. e. , Commissioner for workmen's Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour commissioner, Cuttack in the impugned judgment and non-consideration of such material fact is a substantial question of law. He further submitted that though the claimants produced the copy of appointment letter of the deceased and adduced oral evidence, there is no material on record to show that the deceased was engaged as a driver in the truck bearing registration no. OIG 2462 on the date and time of accident and, therefore, employment, if any of the deceased was casual in nature. He thus submits that the deceased cannot be construed to be a workman, as defined under the Act and the appellant insurer is not liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Commissioner. ( 4 ) MR. L. M. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for claimants, who are appellants in F. A. O. No. 128 of 2002 while contending that the appeal preferred by the insurer does not involve any substantial question of law, argued in support of the appeal preferred by the claimants that the learned commissioner has committed illegality in not including the batta (food allowance) of rs. 15 per day while calculating the wage of the deceased and has further erred in not directing payment of interest on the compensation amount under section 4-A (3) of the Act. In reply to the contentions raised by Mr. Rao, Mr. Nanda relying on the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Birabar Nayak, 1996 (I) OLR 207, contended that the fact of no information to the police regarding an accident is not a substantial question of law. ( 5 ) BOTH the learned counsel for the parties have relied on several decisions in support of their respective contentions, but as the position of law is well settled in respect of many of the contentions raised in these appeals, I do not find it necessary to refer each of the citations made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the submissions made, i find that these two appeals involve the following questions for consideration: (i) Whether non-consideration of the fact that no information was lodged regarding the accident in the concerned police station, is a question of law to be gone into in an appeal under section 30 of the Act? (ii) Whether the deceased was a casual employee and thus not a workman, as defined under the Act in the facts of this case? (iii) Whether the batta/food allowance should be included in the wage of a workman for calculation of compensation under the Act? (iv) Whether it is mandatory to award interest on the compensation amount under section 4-A (3) of the Act to the claimants and the insurer is liable to pay the same? ( 7 ) IN the case of New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Birabar Nayak, 1996 (1) OLR 207, this court in a similar situation held that non-information to the police of an accident is a factual aspect and is not a substantial question of law for the purpose of section 30 of the Act. On perusal of the record of the court below I also find that the insurer has not taken this stand in its written statement inasmuch as this point was also not raised before the learned commissioner during the course of hearing of the case. I, therefore, hold that the fact that no information was lodged regarding the accident in the concerned police station is not a question of law required to be decided in these appeals. ( 8 ) THE question as to whether the deceased was a casual employee and thus not a workman as defined under the Act, as raised by the insurer is necessary to be dealt with. Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the insurer contended that the definition of 'workman' as given in the Act excludes a workman whose work is of casual nature and in the present case since there is no material on record to show that the deceased was specifically engaged to drive the truck bearing No. OIG 2462 the copy of the appointment letter produced by the claimants and the oral evidence adduced do not prove that the deceased was a workman on the date and at the time of accident. Mr. Mr. Nanda on the contrary submitted that the appointment letter produced by the claimants clearly shows that the deceased was employed as a driver under the owner of the vehicle and as on the date and at the time of the accident he was undisputedly working as a driver of the truck bearing no. OIG 2462 the presumption under law is that he was employed for the trade and business of the employer and thus squarely comes under the definition of 'workman' as given in the Act. He relies on the decision of this court in the case of New India assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohan Kumar Sa-hoo, 2003 (II) OLR 388 . In the said case deceased in absence of the regular driver was engaged by the owner for one day to drive his bus and died in a motor accident. This court analysing the facts involved and the law on the point and replying upon various other decisions held thus:"this indicates that the owner had definite control over the deceased. He was driving the vehicle on the direction of the owner of the vehicle, may be, he was employed for a day only. His engagement for one day will not throw him out of the definition of workman under section 2 (1) (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Section 2 (1) (n) further postulates that the persons excluded from definition are those whose employment is not only of casual nature, but who are employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer's trade or business. "in this view of the matter and the fact that in the written statement filed by the owner of the vehicle the employment of the deceased was admitted by the owner, I have no hesitation to hold that the deceased in the present case comes under the definition of 'workman' as given in the Workmen's compensation Act. ( 9 ) WITH regard to the question as to whether batta/food allowance should be included in the wage of a workman for calculating the amount of compensation to which the dependants of the deceased workman are entitled to, learned counsel for the claimants relied on the decisions in regional Director, E. S. I. Corpn. v. Indian paints and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. , 1999 (II)OLR 635 and Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Giriwal Trans. Corpn. , 1995 (II) LLJ 169. v. Indian paints and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. , 1999 (II)OLR 635 and Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Giriwal Trans. Corpn. , 1995 (II) LLJ 169. In case of Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) A. Pasayat, J. (as his Lordship then was), after analysing the decisions of various High Courts including a Division bench decision of this court in Misc. Appeal No. 328 of 1990 disposed of on 21. 11. 1992 held that batta is a part of wages and is encompassed within the definition of 'wages'. In the case of Regional director, E. S. I. Corpn. (supra) while considering a similar question, this court held that under the E. S. I. Act payments made to workers for working overtime can be considered to be 'wages' as per the definition in the said Act. ( 10 ) CONSIDERING the position of law as enunciated in the above decisions I have no hesitation to hold that learned Commissioner while calculating the compensation payable to the claimants and accepting the monthly wage of the deceased to be rs. 2,000 should have included the batta/ food allowance with the wage of deceased. Taking the said batta/food allowance to be rs. 10 per day, the wage of the deceased would be Rs. 2,300. As such the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of rs. 2,300 divided by 2 and multiplied by 192. 14 = Rs. 2,20,961 rounded up it comes to Rs. 2,21,000. ( 11 ) THE only other question to be determined in this appeal is whether it is mandatory to award interest on the compensation amount as provided in section 4-A (3) of the Act. 2,300 divided by 2 and multiplied by 192. 14 = Rs. 2,20,961 rounded up it comes to Rs. 2,21,000. ( 11 ) THE only other question to be determined in this appeal is whether it is mandatory to award interest on the compensation amount as provided in section 4-A (3) of the Act. Section 4-A (3) of the Act is quoted hereinbelow:"4-A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.-xxx xxx xxx (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall: (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; xxx xxx xxx" ( 12 ) FROM the above provision it would be clear that if the compensation is not paid within one month from the date it fell due, the employer shall, in addition to the amount of compensation pay simple interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum in the minimum. ( 13 ) IT is no more res integra that payment of compensation under Workmen's compensation Act falls due from the date of death of the workman and that the insurer, who is liable to pay the principal amount of compensation, is also liable to pay interest thereon as prescribed under the provision quoted above, to the claimants. In the case of Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi, 1998 ACJ 1 (SC), the Apex court has held that the insurance company will be liable to make good not only the principal amount of compensation payable by the insured-employer, but also the interest thereon. ( 14 ) THUS in the present case the claimants are entitled to the compensation of rs. 2,21,000 (rupees two lakh twenty-one thousand) along with 12 per cent interest per annum at a simple rate from the date of death, i. e. , 12. 11. 2000. ( 15 ) IT appears that the amount of compensation, i. e. , Rs. ( 14 ) THUS in the present case the claimants are entitled to the compensation of rs. 2,21,000 (rupees two lakh twenty-one thousand) along with 12 per cent interest per annum at a simple rate from the date of death, i. e. , 12. 11. 2000. ( 15 ) IT appears that the amount of compensation, i. e. , Rs. 1,44,105 as awarded in the impugned judgment was deposited by the insurer before the Commissioner of workmen's Compensation on 10. 3. 2003. The insurer is, therefore, liable to deposit the balance amount of compensation along with 12 per cent interest at the simple rate per annum on the entire amount of compensation from 12. 11. 2000 till 10. 3. 2003. The insurer is, therefore, directed to deposit the above differential amount before the learned Commissioner for Workmen's compensation within a period of eight weeks from today. The amount in deposit and the amount to be deposited shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants. ( 16 ) IN the result, therefore, M. A. No. 555 of 2002 is dismissed and F. A. O. No. 128 of 2004 is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. Orders accordingly.