Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by non-claimant/appellant ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited against judgment and order dated 21.07.2011 of learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District-I, Jaipur. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has made threefold arguments for assailing the impugned judgment and order of the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner. His first contention is that the reason assigned by the claimant for injuries leading to 30% permanent disability suffered by him, cannot be accepted. What he has stated is that he received such injuries leading to permanent disability while changing stepney/tyre, whereas he also admitted in his statement that apart from him there was a khalasi, whose job was to change the stepney/tyre and not of the claimant. Second contention is that there was violation of condition of the insurance that the vehicle could not have been used for carrying passengers other than the employees not exceeding the number permitted in the registration document, and given under the provision of Workmen Compensation Act. Third contention is that the interest at the rate of 12% is excessive and should not have been awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 17.02.2009. 3. The claim petition has been allowed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The contention that since there was also a khalasi deployed on the vehicle, the claimant should not have involved himself in change of stepney/tyre, cannot be accepted because it is a question of fact and that has been satisfactorily proved by the claimant driver before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. He has additionally stated that there was also a khalasi on the vehicle in question but he did change the tyre, that cannot be taken as a breach of policy. It cannot be accepted that the respondent was carrying passengers for consideration. All that has been stated in cross-examination is that apart from him, Ajruddin and one more person was there with him, but the mishap took place when the vehicle was in punctured condition and when the driver was changing its tyre, the jack of the vehicle slipped leading to compound fracture of right leg and right shoulder of the claimant-driver. It cannot therefore be accepted that there was a breach of policy. On this aspect the Workmen Compensation Commissioner was perfectly justified in granting the interest from the date of filing claim petition. Appeal is therefore dismissed.