JUDGMENT Coram : Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Both the above appeals have been filed against the judgment and award dated 24.8.2004, passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Garhwal Region, Dehradun in WCA No. 22/2002 Smt. Saraswati Devi Chamoli & Others Vs. Ram Dayal Chamoli & another, therefore, wherein the Workmen Compensation Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs. 2,36,428/- to the claimants against the United India Insurance Company Ltd. We are deciding both these appeals by this common judgment. For the convenience we are mentioning herein the facts relating to F.A. No. 393/2004. Opposite party No. 1 – Smt. Saraswati Devi Chamoli is the wife of late Sri Mathura Prasad Chamoli and on 13.09.2002 filed a petition before the court below for compensation. The owner of the truck was Mr. Ram Dayal Chamoli. According to the claimant, the deceased – Mathura Prasad Chamoli was the engaged as driver of truck bearing registration no. UAO9/4514. On 03.05.2002 the said truck met with an accident at Rishikesh – Tehri road, due to which the driver of the truck died at the spot. At the time of the accident, the deceased was getting Rs. 5000/- per month. All the claimants were fully dependent on him therefore, they issued notice on 02.08.2002 for compensation but the owner of the truck refused the give any compensation. Therefore, the claimants filed a petition for claiming Rs. 3,84,280/- as compensation. All the opposite parties filed their separate written statement denying the allegation made in the claim petition. Sri Ram Dayal Chamoli who was the owner of the truck stated in his written statement that at the time of the accident, the truck was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd., therefore, the compensation is liable to be paid by the Insurance Company. It has further stated that in this regard on 15.07.2002, the owner of the truck sent a letter to Insurance Company. United India Insurance company Ltd./appellant also filed its separate written statement. In the written statement it has been stated that the Insurance Company is liable to pay any compensation only after final decision of the petition and as per the terms and condition of the policy. 2. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the court below framed relevant issue. 3. The parties led evidence before the Workmen Commissioner in support of their claim. 2. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the court below framed relevant issue. 3. The parties led evidence before the Workmen Commissioner in support of their claim. The Commissioner after hearing parties and perusing the material on record, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,36,428/- to be paid by United India Insurance Company. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the United India Assurance Company as well as the claimants preferred appeals. 5. Heard Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company has argued that the deceased was real younger brother of the owner of the offending truck and at the time of accident he was not travelling as a cleaner of the vehicle and the claimant had failed to prove that the deceased had died in the alleged accident in the course of employment. 7. The submission raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company/appellant has no substance. It has been the specific case of the claimant that her husband Mathura Prasad, at the time of accident was working as conductor in the offending vehicle UA-09-43514 and was getting Rs. 6000/- per month as his salary. Smt. Saraswati Devi, P.W. 1 has stated this fact in her on oath statement. This statement of Smt. Saraswati Devi has not been rebutted on behalf of the insurance company. Even in the objection raised before the Workmen Commissioner, the insurance company has not taken this plea. The accident is admitted to the appellant/insurance company, it has also come in evidence that the offending vehicle was being carried to Rishikesh Workshop for repair and permission in this regard was duly obtained from the R.T.O. It has also come on record that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurance company and it had valid registration. The appellant/insurance company has not adduced any evidence contrary to the claim of the claimants. It has been fully established on behalf of the claimants that the deceased was doing the work of conductor on the offending vehicle and he died in the accident during the course of his employment, while the vehicle was being carried to Rishikesh for repair. The vehicle was being plied in terms of conditions of insurance policy. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner was justified in awarding compensation against the appellant/insurance company. The vehicle was being plied in terms of conditions of insurance policy. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner was justified in awarding compensation against the appellant/insurance company. 8. So far as the appeal filed on behalf of the claimants is concerned, their claim is that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has wrongly taken into consideration the payment of Minimum Wages Act and the Government Order dated 28.11.1991 and fixing the salary of the deceased at Rs. 2,461/- per month. 9. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner has recorded the finding that the claimant has not brought on record any documentary evidence to establish the monthly salary of the deceased and therefore, fixed the monthly salary at Rs. 2461/- in accordance with the provision of G.O. No. 3695/36-3-4 (MW) 90 dated 28.11.91. Smt. Saraswati Devi (P.W. 1), although has stated on oath that her husband was getting Rs. 6000/- per month as salary, but her interested statement is not supported by other cogent and reliable evidence. She could have obtained salary certificate from the owner of the vehicle and filed before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. In our opinion in absence of any reliable evidence with regard to the salary of the deceased, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner had no other option except to assess the monthly salary of the deceased in accordance with the provisions of the relevant G.O. Therefore, the finding of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner in relation to calculation of the compensation, is just and proper and require on interference by this Court. 10. From the above discussion, both the appeals are hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 28.4.2004 is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs.