JUDGMENT : V.M. Velumani, J. This appeal is filed against the order made in W.C. No. 319 of 2001, dated 01.04.2004 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirappalli. 2. The appellant Insurance Company is the third respondent in the W.C.No.319 of 2001 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Tiruchirappalli. The respondents 1 to 3 along with one Soundaravalliammal filed the W.C. No. 319 of 2001 claiming a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation. The fourth respondent is the owner of the omnibus. The fifth respondent is the Manager of S.R.K. Travels. The appellant is the insurer of the omnibus. The Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation awarded a sum of Rs. 2,72,528/- as compensation to respondents 1 to 3 and Soundaravalliammal. Against the said order, dated 1.4.2004, the present appeal has been filed. The facts of the case : 3. According to the respondents 1 to 3, the deceased was working as driver of the omnibus belonging to the fourth respondent. On 11.12.2000, the deceased was working as driver and drove the omnibus from Trichy to Chennai. While driving the bus, on return trip from Chennai to Trichy, he suffered heart attack and he died at 5.30 a.m. on 12.12.2000. According to the respondents 1 to 3, he died during and in the course of employment due to pressure of work as he was made to drive the bus without any rest. According to the respondents 1 to 3, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- p.m. by way of salary including batta paid to him. The deceased was aged about 39 years at the time of accident. The respondents 1 to 3 and Soundaravalliammal are the legal heirs of the deceased. Therefore they claimed a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as compensation for the death of husband of first respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3 and son of the Soundaravalliammal, now deceased. 4. The fourth respondent owner of the bus remained ex parte before the tribunal. 5. The fifth respondent denied various allegations made against him. He denied that he is the Manager of travels. He is not having any record and he is an unnecessary party to the proceedings. 6. The appellant filed a counter statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. 5. The fifth respondent denied various allegations made against him. He denied that he is the Manager of travels. He is not having any record and he is an unnecessary party to the proceedings. 6. The appellant filed a counter statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The appellant denied the fact that the deceased died during and in the course of employment. The age, avocation and income were denied. They have also stated that no complaint was lodged with the police and no postmortem was conducted. They have stated that the deceased died due to natural cause. The body of the deceased was hurriedly cremated. At the time of accident, the deceased did not have the valid driving licence. No claim form was submitted either by the respondents 1 to 3 or by the fourth respondent. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the claim Petition. 7. Before the Commissioner, the first respondent was examined as P.W.1 and one Sekar, alternate driver who worked with the deceased was examined as P.W.2. Nine documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P9. The appellant examined one Kumarananthan (Senior Clerk) as R.W.1 and marked three documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. 8. The Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, considering the pleadings and evidence, came to the conclusion that the deceased died only during and in the course of his employment. The respondents 1 to 3 did not produce any evidence to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- p.m. In the circumstances, the Commissioner fixed the salary of the deceased at Rs.2,849/- as per the minimum wages Act. The age of the deceased was 39 years. By applying the formula as contemplated under the ''Act'', he awarded compensation of Rs.2,70,028/-. He further awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. The Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Tiruchirappalli, also directed the appellant to pay interest at 12% p.a as per Section 4-A(3) of the Employees Compensation Act as per the Judgement of the Apex Court reported in 1998 ACJ Page 1 [Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and Others]. 9. Against the said order, dated 01.04.2004, the present appeal has been filed. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that : 1. the deceased did not die during and in the course of employment; 2. 9. Against the said order, dated 01.04.2004, the present appeal has been filed. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that : 1. the deceased did not die during and in the course of employment; 2. there is difference in the trip-sheet with regard to the driver who drove the vehicle on the day and particulars of the deceased; 3. the respondents did not file any claim form with the appellant. They did not Co-operate with the appellant; 4. the first respondent also refused to furnish particulars to the Investigating Officer of the appellant; 5. No police complaint was lodged and no postmortem was conducted; 6. The 5th respondent, who is an employee of the fourth respondent seems to have cheated the respondents 1 to 3 from getting compensation from the fourth respondent; 7. the deceased was not a workmen as defined under the ''Act''; 8. the Deputy Commissioner of Workmen Compensation did not properly assess the liability; and 9. the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Tiruchirappalli is not correct in directing the appellant to pay interest of Rs.1,08,102.00/- from the date of accident till the date of order. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3-Mr. N. Sudhagar Nagaraj contended that the deceased was employed as driver in the Travels belonging to the fourth respondent. He was driving the vehicle on 11.12.2000 and early morning of 12.12.2000. He died during and in the course of employment. Therefore the owner of the omnibus and the appellant are liable to pay compensation. The Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has fixed the income of the deceased as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the rules framed therein and taking into consideration of the materials on record correctly awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,72,528/- together with interest from the date of accident. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 relied on the following decisions : (i) 2013 (2) TN MAC 334 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Salem 636 016 v. Muniammal and four others), wherein at paragraph 10, it has been held as follows: "10. 2,72,528/- together with interest from the date of accident. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 relied on the following decisions : (i) 2013 (2) TN MAC 334 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Salem 636 016 v. Muniammal and four others), wherein at paragraph 10, it has been held as follows: "10. In the present case, the evidence of P.W.2, the Cleaner, who accompanied the deceased while driving the vehicle, indicated that the deceased drove the vehicle continuously prior to his falling ill suddenly and the deceased stopped the vehicle on its way to Goa along with road side because of the sudden illness he developed due to restless and over work. It is contended before the Deputy Labour Commissioner by the appellant that the deceased had past history of high blood pressure and the same has not been pleaded in the counter. It was raised for the first time before the Deputy Labour Commissioner on the ground that there was no material to show that the deceased had pre-existing high blood pressure and was taking treatment for a long time." (ii) 2013 (1) TN MAC 454 (Anbazhagan and others v. V.Shankar and another), wherein at paragraph 8, it has been held as follows : "8. ......First Information Report or police investigation is not always a condition precedent for awarding the claim. The claim could be awarded, if the same is proved by admissible evidence with all probabilities. The claim case or its victim could not be left in every case on the mercy of the Police. The Court is empowered to examine and adjudicate the case on the available evidence, even on those cases, in which the Police neither registered the offence nor investigated the same................." 13. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 14. At the time of admission, no substantial question of law has been framed. The learned counsel for the appellant raised the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirappalli is correct in fastening the liability in to with the appellant herein? 2. Whether the non-production of the FIR and postmortem certificate would not fatal to the case of the respondents 1 to 4 herein? 3. The learned counsel for the appellant raised the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirappalli is correct in fastening the liability in to with the appellant herein? 2. Whether the non-production of the FIR and postmortem certificate would not fatal to the case of the respondents 1 to 4 herein? 3. Whether the deceased was a "workmen" and the accident in question has arisen in the course of employment "under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act"? 4. Whether the Award of Rs.2,72,528/- fixed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is just and proper and not exaggerated? 15. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to Ex.A2-Trip sheet filed by the respondents 1 to 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is difference in Badge Number mentioned in the Trip-Sheet and in driving licence of the deceased. Therefore he contended that the deceased did not drive the bus on the day when he died. This shows that the deceased did not die during and in the course of employment. This contention is untenable. In the trip-sheet, the name of the deceased and P.W.2 are mentioned. From the trip-sheet, it is seen that the number of driving licence mentioned in the trip-sheet tallies with driving licence of the deceased. In the circumstances, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has rightly held that the deceased was driving the omnibus on the early morning of 12.12.2000 and he died during and in the course of employment. P.W.2 who was the alternate driver at that time who travelled along with the deceased gave evidence that the deceased died while he was driving the bus. The respondents 4 and 5 did not deny that the deceased was employed by them. The appellant or the respondents 4 and 5 have not alleged and proved that the deceased was suffering from any previous ailment and died due to previous illness. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that the deceased died during and in the course of employment is correct and valid. 16. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no FIR was lodged and no postmortem was conducted and therefore respondents 1 to 4 are not entitled to get compensation is untenable. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that the deceased died during and in the course of employment is correct and valid. 16. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no FIR was lodged and no postmortem was conducted and therefore respondents 1 to 4 are not entitled to get compensation is untenable. As held by this Court in the Judgement reported in 2013 (1) TN MAC 454 (supra), for various reasons, FIR may not be lodged or registered and investigated. Non-lodging/registering FIR will not deprive their entitlement to compensation. In the present case, respondents 1 to 4 have proved that the deceased died due to stress in view of continuous driving. The deceased complained of uneasiness and P.W.2, the alternate driver categorically stated that the deceased fell ill while driving the omnibus and died. The statement of respondents 1 to 4 that they did not give any complaint and did not insist on postmortem as fifth respondent assured them that he would get them compensation and requested them not to give any complaint to the Police is acceptable in the circumstances and position they were placed as legal heirs of deceased driver. Failure to lodge FIR and not insisting on postmortem are not fatal to the claim of the respondents 1 to 4 in this case. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the finding of Commissioner that deceased died during and in the course of his employment. 17. The Deputy Commissioner in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the salary of the deceased fixed the income of the deceased as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. As per the driving licence, the age of the deceased was 39 years at the time of his death. The formula adopted by the Deputy Commissioner is as per the provisions of Employees Compensation Act. In the circumstances, the compensation of Rs.2,72,528/- awarded by the Deputy Commissioner is just and proper compensation and it does not require any interference by this Court. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation is not correct in directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,08,102/- as interest from the date of accident till the date of order of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is unsustainable. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation is not correct in directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,08,102/- as interest from the date of accident till the date of order of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is unsustainable. The compensation is payable from the date of accident. As the compensation is payable from the date of accident, interest is also payable from that date. The question as to whether the interest is payable from the date of accident or from the date of order of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, is no longer res integra. This issue was decided in the Judgment reported in 2012 (2) TN MAC 395 (SC) [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George and others], wherein at paragraphs 11 to 13, it has been held as follows : "11. The decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo was a Four-Judge Bench and in Valsala by a Three-Judge Bench of this Court. Both the decisions were, thus, fully binding on the Court in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir, each of which was heard by Two Judges. But the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala were not brought to the notice of this Court in the two later decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir. 12. In light of the decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala, it is not open to contend that the payment of compensation would fall due only after the Commissioner's order or with reference to the date on which the claim application is made. The decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir insofar as they took a contrary view to the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala do not express the correct view and do not make binding precedents. 13. In light of the discussion made above, we find no merit in the Appeal and it is dismissed with costs amounting to Rs.20,000/-. The amount of cost must be paid to the respondents within six weeks from today." This Judgment was referred to with approval by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 25 (SC) [Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others]. The amount of cost must be paid to the respondents within six weeks from today." This Judgment was referred to with approval by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 25 (SC) [Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others]. After extracting the above referred paragraphs, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in paragraph 12, held as follows : "12. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, the Appeal is allowed and the Judgment and Order of the High Court is set aside. The Appellants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the accident." In view of the fact that the compensation and interest are payable from the date of accident, there is no infirmity in the impugned order of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. 19. For the reasons stated above, the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant. 20. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 28.07.2015.