JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is instituted against the award dated 20.11.2006, rendered by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra, H.P. in case No. 2/2002, 1/2005. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondents No. 1 to 6, being legal heirs of deceased Prakash Chand, 29.4.2000, have filed petition for grant of compensation under Workmen Compensation Act 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Late Sh. Prakash Chand was engaged as driver. He died in the accident on 29.4.2000 at 2:30 A.M. He was 29 years of age at the time of accident. His wages were Rs. 4500/- per month. Respondent No. 7 was proceeded ex-parte on 24.9.2002 by the learned Commissioner. 2. The appellant Insurance Company contested the petition by filing preliminary objections as well. According to it, the vehicle in question was not insured with it. Sh. Prakash Chand has not died in the accident during the course of his employment. 3. The learned Commissioner framed the issues on 29.10.2002. The learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 6,10,840/- along-with interest @ 12% in favour of the applicants on 20.11.2006. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company. 4. The appeal was admitted on 19.9.2007 on the following substantial questions of law: "7. Whether he Commissioner erred while fastening the liability upon the insurance of company in the absence of any subsisting contract of insurance with the Respondent No. 1 to cover his employee's liability? 2. Whether the Commissioner is empowered to adopt his own procedure alien to the provisions of the W.C. Act and can apply the amended provisions of the Act with retrospective effect? 3. Whether the Ld. Commissioner was justified in imposing the interest and penalty on award amount upon the insurance company in the absence of any contract or statutory provision empowering him to do so?" 5. Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate for the appellant, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that the learned Commissioner has applied the amended provisions while awarding the compensation to the claimants. He then contended that the interest was not payable by the Insurance Company. He also argued that the vehicle in question was not insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. On the other hand, Ajay Dhiman and Salochna Kaundal, Advocates, have supported the award dated 20.11.2006. 6. He then contended that the interest was not payable by the Insurance Company. He also argued that the vehicle in question was not insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. On the other hand, Ajay Dhiman and Salochna Kaundal, Advocates, have supported the award dated 20.11.2006. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the records and order very carefully. 7. AW-1 Tripta Devi testified that her husband was driving the truck. He met with an accident on 29.4.2000. FIR was registered and post mortem was also conducted. The age of her husband was 29 years at the time of the accident. AW-2 Angrej Singh, PS Muktsar Punjab, has proved rapat Roznamcha No. 53 dated 29.4.2000. AW-3 Dr. M.G. Sharma, Phas proved the post mortem report Ext. PW-2/A. 8. RW-1 Bal Krishan Thakur, Clerk RLAH Office Solan, has testified that as per the record, driving licence No. 9236/SLN/MLC/86 was not issued by MLO Solan in the name of Prakash Chand. He also deposed that from 1.1.1986 to 31.12.1986, total 531 licences had been issued from Sr. No. 1 to 531. Ext. RW-1/A was not issued by their office. RW-2 Gian Chand testified that he was the owner of truck No. HP-38-9535. The truck was insured with the National Insurance Company, Dharamshala. He proved insurance vide Ext. RW-2/A. It was valid up to 14.10.2000. The accident occurred on 29.4.2000. The driver Prakash Chand had valid and effective driving licence at the time of recruitment. He used to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to deceased Prakash Chand. He also used to pay allowances to him. He has proved driving licence Ext. RW-1/A. 9. The claimants have duly proved that the deceased has died during the course of his employment while driving truck No. HP-38-9535 on 29.4.2000. The claimants have proved insurance of the vehicle vide Ext. RW-2/A. The accident took place on 29.4.2000. The deceased was 29 years of age at the time of accident. It has also come on record that Ext. RW-1/A driving licence was not issued by MLO Office, Solan in the name of deceased. The Insurance Company has proved that the driver was not possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The vehicle in question was insured vide Insurance Policy Ext. It has also come on record that Ext. RW-1/A driving licence was not issued by MLO Office, Solan in the name of deceased. The Insurance Company has proved that the driver was not possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The vehicle in question was insured vide Insurance Policy Ext. RW.-2/A. The Insurance Company was rightly made liable to pay compensation but could get it recovered from the owner on the basis of insurance policy Ext. R.W.-2/A. 10. 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." 11. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manju Sarkar Vs. Mabish Miah, (2014) 3 ACC 451 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 Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya and Another, AIR 2006 SC 1926 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. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya and Another, AIR 2006 SC 1926 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." 12. The accident has taken place, as noticed hereinabove, on 29.4.2000. However, the learned Workmen's Commissioner has applied the amended provisions of law with retrospective effect, while calculating the wages of the deceased. The wages of the deceased at the relevant time were to be taken as Rs. 2000/- and thereafter, it was to be reduced to Rs. 1000/-. It was to be further multiplied by the relevant factor i.e. 209.92, at the age of 29. Thus, the learned Workmen's Commissioner has erred in applying the law. It is settled law that the law has to be applied which is prevalent at the time of the accident for calculating the compensation. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 13. The petitioners, being the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to compensation amount as under: (1) Age 29 years, salary Rs. (2000 - 1000) = Rs. 1000 per month, for the purpose of compensation i.e. Rs. 1000 x 209.92 = 2,09,920/- (2) Simple interest @ 12% per annum from 29.4.2000, till date, comes out to Rs.3,84,909.312, instead of 6% awarded by the learned Commissioner. (3) Total amount comes out to Rs. 5,94,829.312. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.5,94,829.312, as computed hereinabove, initially to be paid by the Insurance Company and the same can be recovered by the Insurance Company from respondent No. 7.