JUDGMENT : B. MANOHAR, J. 1. These appeals and cross-objection are filed by the United India Insurance Company as well as the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03-04-2009 made in WCA Nos. 229 and 230 of 2001 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub Division-II, Bijapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the WCC for short). 2. MFA No. 31711/2009 and MFA No. 31712/2009 are filed by the United India Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the WCC fastening the liability on them to compensate the claimants whereas the MFA Cross-Objection No. 1005/2010 is filed by the claimants being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation. 3. Since the common judgment and order passed by the WCC has been challenged in these appeals and cross-objections, both the appeals and cross-objection are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Claimants are the sons of deceased Lakshmi Bai and brother of deceased Akku Bai. They filed the claim petition contending that their mother Smt. Lakshmibai and their sister Akkubai were working as coolies in a lorry bearing registration No. AP-11/T-4737 belonging to the first respondent therein. As per the instructions of the owner of the vehicle, on 27-06-1994, the mother and sister of the claimants were proceeding in the offending lorry for the purpose of loading stones on Pune-Mumbai road, near Kangav village, due to the rash and negligent driving, the driver of the said lorry dashed against the stationed lorry. Due to the impact, the mother and sister of the claimants sustained grievous injuries, subsequently, they succumbed to injuries. In the claim petition, it was contended that the deceased were working as coolies and on that day, after loading stones, they were proceeding for construction of road at Phanavel. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, the accident had occurred. Prior to the accident, both the deceased were earning Rs. 1,500/- p.m. and batta of Rs. 20/- per day to Laxmibai and Rs. 50/- per day to Akkubai. The claimants are the dependants of the deceased and sought for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- each. 5. In pursuance of the notice issued by the WCC, owner of the vehicle remained unrepresented. Prior to the accident, both the deceased were earning Rs. 1,500/- p.m. and batta of Rs. 20/- per day to Laxmibai and Rs. 50/- per day to Akkubai. The claimants are the dependants of the deceased and sought for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- each. 5. In pursuance of the notice issued by the WCC, owner of the vehicle remained unrepresented. On behalf of the Insurance Company, they entered appearance and filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and disputed the relationship of master and servant between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle. Further, the deceased mother and daughter were travelling in a goods vehicle as unauthorised passengers. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation framed the necessary issues. 7. The claimants in order to prove their case, the first claimant was examined as P.W. 1 and one of the eye-witnesses was examined as P.W. 2 and got marked the documents as Ex. P1 to Ex. P8. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. K.M. Manjunathaswamy, the Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W. 1 and got marked the insurance policy as Ex. R1. 8. The WCC after considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration the charge sheet, spot panchanama and copy of the complaint held that the deceased died in the road traffic accident occurred on 27-6-1994, due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No. AP-11/T-4737. Claimants are the dependents of deceased Laxmibai. The accident occurred during the course and out of employment. Hence, the claimants are entitled for compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, in MVC No. 230/2011, the WCC, taking the income of Laxmibai as Rs. 1,500/- deducting 50% thereof, applying the relevant factor of 197.06, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,47,795/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. In MVC No. 229/2011, the WCC taking the income of Rs. 1,500/- p.m., taking 50% thereof, since the deceased was aged about 13 years, applied the relevant factor 228.54, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500/- deducting 50% thereof, applying the relevant factor of 197.06, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,47,795/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. In MVC No. 229/2011, the WCC taking the income of Rs. 1,500/- p.m., taking 50% thereof, since the deceased was aged about 13 years, applied the relevant factor 228.54, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,71,405/- with interest at 12% p.a. Since the vehicle was covered by insurance policy as on the date of accident and the accident occurred during the course and out of employment, liability was fastened on the Insurance Company to compensate the claimants. The appellant-Insurance Company being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and fastening liability on the Insurance Company to compensate the claimants, the insurer has filed these two appeals. The claimants in WCA 229/2009 filed cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation. 9. Sri. Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the judgment and order passed by the WCC is contrary to law. No document has been produced to show that there is relationship of master and servant between the deceased as well as the owner of the vehicle as required under Section 2(1)(n) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Further, in the complaint lodged before the jurisdictional Police, it was clearly mentioned that deceased Laxmibai and Akkubai were travelling the cabin of the lorry. Hence, they cannot be treated as workman and the compensation awarded by the WCC is contrary to law and sought for setting aside the same by allowing the appeal. 10. Sri. Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the cross-objectors contended that the deceased were the mother and sister of claimants and they were appointed by the first respondent in the claim petition to work as coolies for construction of road work at Phanavel. On 27-06-1004, while they were proceeding in the offending lorry on Pune-Mumbai Road for the purpose of loading the stones, the vehicle met with an accident and the deceased sustained grievous injuries, subsequently succumbed to injuries. The first respondent-owner of the lorry appointed them to work as coolies for construction of road work at Phanavel taluk and they were not unauthorised passengers travelling in the goods vehicle. The owner of the offending vehicle has not disputed the claim made by the claimants, as he remained ex-parte in the proceedings. The first respondent-owner of the lorry appointed them to work as coolies for construction of road work at Phanavel taluk and they were not unauthorised passengers travelling in the goods vehicle. The owner of the offending vehicle has not disputed the claim made by the claimants, as he remained ex-parte in the proceedings. Nobody will travel in the goods vehicle for the purpose of sight seeing at Bombay. It is the further contention of learned counsel for the claimants that though the sister of claimants was aged about 13 years, the girls at village also work as coolies and they will be assisting the other coolies by supplying water and doing some other minor works. Further, the compensation awarded in MVC No. 229/2001 is on the lower side. It is the specific case of the claimants that apart from Rs. 1,500/- p.m., the deceased was getting batta of Rs. 50/- per day, which the WCC has not taken into consideration. Further, the interest awarded is from 31-5-2009 i.e. one month after passing of the judgment and order which is contrary to law. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in, 2012 AIR SCW 4384 in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George & Others, the claimants are entitled to interest @12% p.a. from one month after the accident. Hence, sought for setting aside that portion of the order and sought for dismissal of the appeals filed by the Insurance Company. 11. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and order and oral and documentary evidence. 12. The records clearly disclose that the mother and sister of the claimants died in the road traffic accident occurred on 27-6-1994 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry. It is the specific case of the claimants that the mother and sister were working as coolies in the offending lorry belonging to the first respondent in the claim petition. They were appointed for construction of road work at Phanavel Taluk. During the course of employment, while they were proceeding in the said lorry at about 5.00 p.m., on Pune-Mumbai Road for the purpose of loading stones, the vehicle met with an accident and they died. They were appointed for construction of road work at Phanavel Taluk. During the course of employment, while they were proceeding in the said lorry at about 5.00 p.m., on Pune-Mumbai Road for the purpose of loading stones, the vehicle met with an accident and they died. P.W. 2 in his evidence has clearly mentioned that the deceased mother and sister were working as coolies in the offending lorry. The claimants are permanent residents of Iwanagi Village, Muddebihal Taluk Bijapur District and they went to Phanavel Taluk for the purpose of construction of road work. They were appointed as coolies in the offending lorry by the first respondent in the claim petition. The records further disclose that Smt. Laxmibai was working as coolie in the said lorry. The deceased Akkubai was aged about 13 years as on the date of death. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act and also under the Labour law, a minor girl cannot be appointed as workmen and no document has been produced to show that Akkubai was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Hence, I am of the considered view that there is relationship of master and servant between Smt. Laxmibai and owner of the vehicle. However, the claimants have failed to prove that there is relationship of master and servant between Akkubai and owner of the offending lorry as she was minor as on the date of accident. 13. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, no document has been produced to show that the owner of offending lorry was paying Rs. 1,500/- p.m., and batta of Rs. 20/- and Rs. 50/- per day to Laxmibai and Akkubai respectively. In the absence of any documents, the WCC has taken the minimum wages being paid to the coolies working in the transport department at the relevant point of time. Taking the income of deceased Rs. 1,500/- p.m., deducting 50% thereof, applying the relevant factor of 197.06 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,47,795/- in MVC No. 230/2001. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SIBY GEORGE (supra), the claimants are entitled for interest from one month after the accident. In the instant case, the WCC has awarded interest from one month after the date of passing of the judgment and order, which is contrary to law. 14. 1,47,795/- in MVC No. 230/2001. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SIBY GEORGE (supra), the claimants are entitled for interest from one month after the accident. In the instant case, the WCC has awarded interest from one month after the date of passing of the judgment and order, which is contrary to law. 14. One of the contentions raised by the appellant-Insurance Company is that there is inordinate delay in filing the claim petition. The accident occurred in the year 1994 and claim petitions have been filed in the year 2001. The claim petitions have to be filed within a period of two months. The inordinate delay of 6 years in filing the claim petitions cannot be condoned. The claimants have produced necessary documents to show that the claimants had preferred MVC No. 94/1995 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigad, subsequently, they withdrew the said claim petition and they have not received any compensation. The records further disclose that they were prosecuting the case in a wrong forum wherein the Commissioner had condoned the delay. Hence, the delay of six years in filing the claim petitions has to be condoned. However, the claimants are not entitled to interest for the delayed period of six years i.e. from 1994 to 2001. 15. In MFA No. 31711/2009, the deceased Akkubai was aged about 13 years, though she was helping the other coolies, she cannot be treated as workmen within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and also there is bar under the Child Labour Act to employ the child labour. 16. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER MFA No. 31711/2009 is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the WCC in WCA-229/2001 is set aside. MFA No. 31712/2009 is dismissed. The claimants in WCA-230/2001 are entitled to compensation as awarded by the WCC with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. However, the claimants are not entitled to interest for the delayed period of six years i.e. till the date of filing of the claim petition. MFA Crob. 1005/2010 filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation is dismissed. The amount in deposit in MFA No. 31712/2009 is directed to be transmitted to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bijapur in view of abolition of post of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. MFA Crob. 1005/2010 filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation is dismissed. The amount in deposit in MFA No. 31712/2009 is directed to be transmitted to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bijapur in view of abolition of post of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The amount in deposit in MFA No. 31711/2009 is directed to refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company."