JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned order of 9.9.2011 rendered by the Commissioner (IV) Shimla, Exercising Powers under Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short "the Commissioner") whereby he dismissed the application preferred there before by the claimants whereby they had claimed compensation on occurrence of demise of their brother Raju in a motor vehicle accident involving vehicle No. HP-01A-1393 whereon he stood engaged as a driver by respondent No.1. 2. Uncontrovertedly the demise of Raju, the brother of the claimants occurred during the course of his performing employment under respondent No.1 as a driver in the aforesaid relevant vehicle. The Commissioner discounted, the oral testification of PW-2 (Ravi Kumar) wherein he bespoke qua his and co-applicant Reena holding a relationship with deceased Raju respectively as his brother and his un-married minor sister, merely for want of adduction of documents in proof thereof comprised in the relevant pariwar register maintained with the Panchayat concerned. The reason aforesaid as meted by the learned Commissioner for discounting the factum of the claimants' holding a relationship with the deceased as his brother and sister respectively is extremely fragile given the submission made at the bar by the learned counsel for the claimants qua theirs being Nepali nationals whereupon obviously the relevant Pariwar register qua them was not amenable for preparation by the Panchayat concerned nor obviously non-occurrence of their names therein dedicative of theirs holding the apposite relationship with the deceased was unamenable to a construction qua theirs thereupon hence not proving the factum of theirs holding the apposite relationship with the deceased. Obviously hence on ground aforesaid the testification of PW-2 qua the apposite relationship of the claimants/appellants herein with deceased Raju did not warrant its standing discountenanced. Also the Commissioner while discounting the relationship of the claimants with the deceased, had meted a reason of PW-2 testifying in his cross-examination qua theirs residing with their uncle and aunt whereupon it concluded of theirs holding the best knowledge qua their relationship with deceased Raju whereas theirs remaining unexamined constrained the Commissioner to draw an adverse inference against the claimants qua the relevant fact. However, it appears of the learned Commissioner untenably thereupon discounting the testification of PW-2 wherein he echoed qua his and Renna holding a relationship with the deceased as his brother and minor sister respectively. However, it appears of the learned Commissioner untenably thereupon discounting the testification of PW-2 wherein he echoed qua his and Renna holding a relationship with the deceased as his brother and minor sister respectively. Even if assumingly PW-2 had echoed qua theirs residing with their Uncle and Aunt also if the aforesaid may have lent corroborative succor to the apposite testification of PW-2 nonetheless with the respondents also holding by citing the uncle and aunt of PW-2 as witnesses hence leverage to belie the testimony of PW-2 qua the relevant fact deposed by him wherefrom on theirs stepping into the witness box they may well could qua the relevant fact evinced the apposite elicitations yet the respondents omitted to do so, hence their omission to lead into the witness box the uncle and aunt of PW-2 was rather enjoined to be borne in mind by the Commissioner, for his thereupon drawing an adverse inference vis-a-vis the respondent rather vis-a-vis the claimants as un-tenably done by him. In sequel the findings recorded by the Commissioner qua the claimants' not holding any relationship with the deceased suffers from want of proper appreciation of evidence on record. In sequel the relevant findings warrant theirs being quashed and set aside. 3. Be that as it may the claimants could in their apposite petition claim compensation from the respondents concerned only when they fell within the ambit of the mandate of Section 2 (1) (d) (iii) (d) which stands extracted hereinafter:- 2(1)(d) (iii) (d) :- "dependent" means any of the following relatives of deceased employee, namely:- A minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor." 4. However co-claimant Ravi Kumar while testifying on 24.2.2010 discloses therein qua his thereat standing aged 21 years wherefrom given the occurrence on 14.9.2008 of the illfated accident involving the relevant vehicle whereon the deceased stood engaged as a driver obviously rendered him to be a major thereat hence with his at the relevant time not being a dependent of the deceased within the mandate of the afore-extracted provisions of the Act whereupon he on demise of Raju stands incapacitated to claim compensation. However, the Commissioner had also not construed co-claimant Reena unmarried sister of deceased Raju to be a minor also hence it concluded of she also on demise of her brother standing dis entitled to receive compensation. However, the Commissioner had also not construed co-claimant Reena unmarried sister of deceased Raju to be a minor also hence it concluded of she also on demise of her brother standing dis entitled to receive compensation. The reason as meted by it for declining the compensation to Reena is perse shaky and vague. Though PW-2 had unequivocally testified qua Reena standing aged 17 years hence a minor also he testified qua hers being unmarried, testifications whereof when remained un-repulsed by any efficacious evidence in rebuttal thereto remaining un-adduced warrants the inevitable conclusion of hers being construable to be a dependent of her deceased elder brother. The respondent No.2 holds an insurance policy executed by respondent No.1 qua the relevant vehicle. The insurance policy stands comprised in Ex. R-1. PW-3 has placed on record mark X the driving license held by deceased Raju. He has deposed qua its original standing held by the deceased. However since the deceased met his end in the illfated occurrence involving the relevant vehicle whereon he stood employed as a driver. In sequel, the conclusion is of the claimants holding no capacity to produce original thereof. Consequently the photocopy of the apposite DL tendered by the claimants is to be concluded to prove the relevant fact of his holding the relevant license for driving the ill-fated vehicle. Since the insurer did not adduce the best evidence comprised in adduction of the relevant records for falsifying mark X begets an inference of Mark X standing not stained with any vice of fictitious, contrarily it is to be concluded to be the true copy of the valid and effective DL held by deceased Raju. 5. The Commissioner had concluded of there occurring an infraction of Ex. PW-3/A arising from the factum of it at the relevant time standing occupied by passengers beyond the permissible capacity enshrined therein. However the aforesaid conclusion stands rested solely upon the testimony of PW-1 who in his cross-examination deposes qua occurrence of the aforesaid infractions merely on anvil of the apposite FIR making the aforesaid disclosure therein. However since the FIR qua the relevant accident involving the relevant vehicle does not constitute substantive evidence hence any reliance placed thereon by the Commissioner to conclude qua the apposite infractions standing begotten at the relevant time was wholly inapt. However since the FIR qua the relevant accident involving the relevant vehicle does not constitute substantive evidence hence any reliance placed thereon by the Commissioner to conclude qua the apposite infractions standing begotten at the relevant time was wholly inapt. Contrarily it has to be concluded of with no infraction qua terms and conditions of the insurance policy comprised in Ex. R-1 upsurging forth the liability qua compensation amount would be borne by the insurer. Now hereat it is imperative to determine the quantum of compensation payable to Reena unmarried sister of deceased. The owner of the vehicle in his testification has voiced therein qua his defraying to deceased Raju per mensem salary of Rs. 3000/- besides testifies qua his also defraying to him daily allowance quantified @ 100. The aforesaid testification remains unshred of its efficacy by the counsel for the insurer while holding him to cross-examination also the mere factum of his not placing the relevant record personifying the aforesaid factum would not hinder this Court to conclude of deceased Raju drawing wages per mensem 6000/- from his employer while the latter engaging him as a driver in the relevant vehicle predominantly when the factum of his standing engaged thereon in the aforesaid capacity remains uncontroverted also when hence the aforesaid amount can easily be concluded to be the legitimate, admissible wages per mensem of a driver at the relevant time. However the amount aforesaid cannot be concluded to be the relevant figure for applying thereto the statutory principles for assessing compensation especially when explanation II to Section 4 of the Act fastens a statutory condition of in the event of wages of a workman exceeding 4000/- as exceed hereat, his monthly wages for the purpose of computation of compensation by applying the relevant statutory principle being pegged at Rs.4000/-. 6. Consequently while taking Rs.4000/- to be the salary per mensem derived by deceased Raju from his employment as a driver in the relevant vehicle of respondent No.1, this Court assesses compensation qua appellant No.1 in the hereinafter manner:- Average monthly wages Rs. 4000/- Restricted to 50% Rs. 2000/- Relevant factor applied. Compensation = 2000 x 218.47 = 4,36,940/- 7. Since qua the relevant vehicle the insured employer of deceased held a valid insurance cover comprised in Ex. 4000/- Restricted to 50% Rs. 2000/- Relevant factor applied. Compensation = 2000 x 218.47 = 4,36,940/- 7. Since qua the relevant vehicle the insured employer of deceased held a valid insurance cover comprised in Ex. R-1 also for reasons afore-stated with no infraction of the insurance cover occurring at the instance of the insured constrains this Court to fasten the liability qua compensation amount along with interest @ 12% simple interest from 14.10.2008 till the date of actual payment determined vis-a-vis Kumari Reena upon the insurer of the relevant vehicle. It is clarified that the interest component of the compensation amount shall also be indemnified by the insurer to the insured unless an interdiction stands held there within whereupon it stands prohibited to defray it to the insured whereupon the interest levied qua the compensation amount assessed vis-a-vis Reena shall be defrayed by respondent No.2/owner of the vehicle to Kumari Reena. 8. In view of above the appeal is partly allowed qua co-appellant Reena. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Records be sent back. Substantial question of law framed on 6.9.2016 stands answered accordingly.