JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J This appeal is instituted against the award dated 22.10.2007, rendered by the learned Workmen’s Commissioner, Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra, H.P. in Case No. 5 of 2005. 2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that Rakesh Kumar son of Prem Chand was employed by respondent No. 4 as Conductor on truck bearing registration No. HP-39A-0555. Rakesh Kumar died at 6:45 PM on 25.4.2005 when he was travelling in the truck. The truck was going from Shahpur to Kotla on 25.4.2005. FIR was registered against respondent No. 3, driver of the vehicle. The post mortem was got conducted vide PMR No. 47/2005 at Dr. R.P.M. college, Dharamshala. The deceased was earning Rs. 4500/- per month. 3. Respondent No. 3-driver, contested the petition. According to him, the accident has not taken place due his rash and negligent driving. The rest of the contents of the petition were admitted. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company also contested the petition. According to the Insurance Company, the deceased was not a “workman”. The factum of the accident dated 25.4.2005 was denied. 5. The learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, allowed the petition and awarded compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 3,37,436/-. The appellant-Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of the award. Hence, this appeal. 6. Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate, for the appellant has vehemently argued that there was no employer-employee relationship in the present case. The Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, was not justified in imposing interest upon the Insurance Company. On the other hand, Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate, has supported the award dated 22.10.2007. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the records and award very carefully. 8. PW-1 Smt. Nisha Devi has deposed that the deceased was her son. He was 18 years old. He was going towards Pathankot on 25.4.2005. He was working as Conductor on the truck. He met with an accident. His son died on the spot. He was earning Rs. 2500/- as wages and Rs. 60- 70/- as daily allowance. PW-2 Madan Lal deposed that the accident has taken place in his presence. The deceased died on the spot. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. He met with an accident. His son died on the spot. He was earning Rs. 2500/- as wages and Rs. 60- 70/- as daily allowance. PW-2 Madan Lal deposed that the accident has taken place in his presence. The deceased died on the spot. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. PW-3 Kishori Lal also deposed that the deceased met with an accident and died on the spot and the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. 9. The owner of the vehicle, Vijay Kumar has appeared as RW-1. He has admitted that he was owner of truck No. HP-39A-0555. He proved route permit Ext. RW-1/A, DL Ext. RW-1/B, registration certificate Ext. RW-1/C, copy of insurance Mark “A”. According to him, the accident has taken place due to failure of break of the vehicle. The Conductor Rakesh Kumar died on the spot. He used to pay him Rs. 2200/- per month. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the deceased was employed by him. 10. The driver Harbans Lal has appeared as RW-2. He admitted that he was deployed as driver of the truck. He denied the suggestion that Smt. Swarna Devi was owner of the truck. The owner was Sh. Vijay Kumar. Swarna Devi has never purchased the truck. In his crossexamination, he admitted that the vehicle was involved in the accident which resulted in the death of conductor Rakesh Kumar. He admitted that Rakesh Kumar was paid Rs. 2200/- as salary and Rs. 60/- as daily allowance. 11. RW-3 Smt. Swarna Devi has also deposed that she has never purchased any truck from Vijay Kumar. RW-5 HC Kuldeep Kumar has also admitted in his cross-examination that the owner of the truck was Sh. Vijay Kumar. 12. It is conclusively proved that the deceased Rakesh Kumar was employed by respondent No. 4 by Vijay Kumar. The accident has taken place on 25.4.2005. The truck was being driven by respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner. According to PW-1 Nisha Devi, her son was getting wages of Rs. 2200/- per month and Rs. 60-70/- as daily allowance. RW-1 Vijay Kumar, has also admitted that he used to pay Rakesh Kumar Rs. 2200/- per month and Rs. 60/- as daily allowance. The learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, has correctly assessed the wages of the workman deceased to Rs. According to PW-1 Nisha Devi, her son was getting wages of Rs. 2200/- per month and Rs. 60-70/- as daily allowance. RW-1 Vijay Kumar, has also admitted that he used to pay Rakesh Kumar Rs. 2200/- per month and Rs. 60/- as daily allowance. The learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, has correctly assessed the wages of the workman deceased to Rs. 2282/- per month. The date of birth of deceased was 24.1.1988. He was 17 years of age. The learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, has rightly applied the relevant factor of 227.49 and has rightly awarded interest @ 12%. 13. Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate, for the appellant has failed to show any clause whereby the interest was not payable by the Insurance Company. The learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) in Rani Kour and others vs. Jagtar Singh and another, 2012 ACJ 2072 has held that where Insurance Company has not expressly stipulated non-liability for payment of interest in the policy, it is liable to pay the interest on the amount of compensation. Learned Single Judge has held as under: “[14] Learned Advocate Mr. Sandip Shah appearing for respondent No. 1-original plaintiff in all the appeals referred to the documentary evidences as well as the pleadings in detail and submitted that the operations were performed on the left eye by defendant No. 3 and thereafter the operation was performed for removal of the left eye-ball by defendant No. 5 and again for cataract in the right eye the operation was performed by defendant No. 5. He submitted that if the chronology of events and the dates are considered, it is evident that there was sepsis in his left eye when the operation was performed. He submitted that with the same condition the operation could not have been performed. The submission with regard to endogenous infection in some other part of the body is misconceived as the pathological reports clearly state that the plaintiff was normal. He submitted that, thus, at the time of treating the patient when there was an injury and the blood had clotted, both defendant Nos. 3 and 4 tried to hush up, played mischief keeping the respondent-plaintiff in the dark which led to deterioration in not only the left eye but also affected his right eye. Learned Advocate Mr. He submitted that, thus, at the time of treating the patient when there was an injury and the blood had clotted, both defendant Nos. 3 and 4 tried to hush up, played mischief keeping the respondent-plaintiff in the dark which led to deterioration in not only the left eye but also affected his right eye. Learned Advocate Mr. Sandip Shah, therefore, submitted that if the pleadings in the form of written statement as well as the depositions are considered, it clearly suggests negligence in performance of the duty by all concerned including defendant Nos. 3 and 5. The Civil Hospital would be liable vicariously for the act of negligence by defendant No. 3. [15] He, therefore, submitted that when the person has lost vision of both the eyes because of any such carelessness or negligence, it cannot be a ground for further scrutiny on any technical grounds raised on the medical opinion. He submitted that the evidence on record as discussed at length in the impugned judgment clearly suggests that there was negligence on the part of original defendant No. 3-Dr. Bhikubhai Patel as well as defendant No. 5-Dr. Jagdishbhai Shah and both the doctors have failed in discharge of their duty exhibiting reasonable care and standard expected of a person in the medical profession. He, therefore, submitted that the appeals may be dismissed.” 14. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manju Sarkar and others vs. Mabish Miah and others, (2014) 14 SCC 21 have held that in the absence of clause of contract of insurance excluding provision for interest, the insurance of company is liable to pay interest. Their Lordships have held as under: “13. A contention was raised by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 Insurance Company that they are not liable to pay the interest component and reliance was placed on the decision of New India Assurances Co. Ltd. Vs. Harshad Bhai Amrut Bhai Modhiya and another [ (2006) 5 SCC 192 ] In the facts of the case on which the said decision arose, the contract of insurance entered into between the parties contained a proviso that the insurance granted is not extended to include any interest. Ltd. Vs. Harshad Bhai Amrut Bhai Modhiya and another [ (2006) 5 SCC 192 ] In the facts of the case on which the said decision arose, the contract of insurance entered into between the parties contained a proviso that the insurance granted is not extended to include any interest. In the present case there is nothing on record to show that respondent No.3 Insurance Company either pleaded about existence of such a clause in the contract of insurance or led any evidence to the said effect and hence the said decision will not help respondent No.3 in any way and the contention raised is devoid of merit.” 15. The driver was possessing valid driving licence vide Ext. RW- 1/B. The route permit is Ext. RW-1/A, insurance of the vehicle is Mark RY-A. The RC is Ext. RW-1/C. The RC was in the name of Vijay Kumar as per the statement of RW-5 Kuldeep Kumar. The vehicle in question was duly ensured with the Insurance Company. Thus, the Insurance Company has rightly been held liable to pay interest. The substantial questions are answered accordingly. 16. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.