JUDGMENT : B. Manohar, J. United India Insurance Company Limited has filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 28.03.2008 made in WCA:SR-115/2007 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub Division-1, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as 'the WCC', for short). 2. The 1st respondent herein filed the claim petition inter alia contending that he was working as a driver in a jeep bearing registration No.KA-23/M-2974 belonging to the 2nd respondent herein. On 03.09.2006, as per the instructions of the owner of the vehicle, while proceeding from Athani to Satti village, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-25/F-1918 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the jeep. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries to right leg, left shoulder and other parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, he took treatment in the Government Hospital, Athani, as an inpatient for a period of two days. Thereafter, he was shifted to Chandrapattana hospital, Miraj, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 07.09.2006 to 28.09.2006. In the accident, he sustained fracture of right femur, fracture of left clavicle and other injuries. He contended that he was aged about 40 years; that he was working as a driver of the jeep belonging to respondent No. 1 before the WCC; that the owner of the jeep was paying him salary of Rs.4,000/- per month and daily batta of Rs.50/-; due to the injuries sustained, he is not able to do the work of a driver as he was doing prior to the accident; that he sustained injuries during the course and out of employment and that the jeep having been insured, the insurer as well as the owner of the jeep were liable to compensate the claimants. Therefore, he sought for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 3. In response to the notice issued by the WCC, the owner and insurer of the jeep entered appearance and filed their written statement. The owner of the jeep in his written statement admitted that the claimant was working as driver of the jeep belonging to him and that the claimant sustained injuries during the course and out of employment. He contended that the insurance policy covers the risk of the jeep and therefore, the insurance company was liable to compensate the claimant. The owner of the jeep in his written statement admitted that the claimant was working as driver of the jeep belonging to him and that the claimant sustained injuries during the course and out of employment. He contended that the insurance policy covers the risk of the jeep and therefore, the insurance company was liable to compensate the claimant. The insurer of the jeep in its written statement denied the entire averments made in the claim petition and contended that there was no relationship of master and servant between the claimant and the owner of the jeep. The claimant was not having a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and hence, the insurance company was not liable to compensate the claimant. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the WCC framed necessary issues. 5. The claimant, in order to prove his case, examined himself as P.W. 1 and the doctor, who issued the disability certificate, was examined as P.W.2, and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.9. On behalf of the respondent, none of the witnesses were examined. However, insurance policy was got marked as Ex.R2-1. 6. The WCC, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration the IMV report, copy of the complaint and charge sheet, held that the claimant sustained injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 03.09.2006 during the course and out of employment and hence, the claimant was entitled for compensation. 7. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, the WCC found that the owner of the vehicle herself had admitted that she was paying salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. The doctor, who issued the disability certificate, taking into consideration the fracture of right femur; that he had undergone operation, steel rods were implanted and he has sustained fracture of clavicle bone assessed the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 65%. The Tribunal taking into consideration the income of Rs.4,000/- per month and taking 60% thereof, taking loss of earning capacity to the extent of 60%, applied relevant factor 181.37, awarded compensation of Rs.2,61,173/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Since the insurance policy covered the risk of the said jeep, the liability was fastened on the insurance company to compensate the claimant. Since the insurance policy covered the risk of the said jeep, the liability was fastened on the insurance company to compensate the claimant. The insurance company being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal has filed this appeal. 8. Sri. S.S. Koliwad for Sri. N.R. Kuppellur, learned advocate appearing for the insurance company contended that the judgment and order passed by the WCC is contrary to the law. The owner of the vehicle is none other than the mother of the claimant and there can be no relationship of master and servant between the claimant and the owner of the jeep and therefore, the claimant was not a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. He also contended that no document was produced to show that the owner of jeep was paying the claimant salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. He further contended that the claimant has sustained fracture of right femur and fracture of clavicle bone, there cannot be any disability as a result of fracture of clavicle bone; that the claimant had undergone surgery, rods were implanted to right femur and as such, the assessment of disability cannot be to the extent 65% as assessed by the doctor. Hence, he sought for modification of the judgment and order passed by the WCC. 9. On the other hand, Sri. S.C. Bhuti, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 argued in support of the judgment and order passed by the WCC and contended that there is no bar under the Workmen's Compensation Act for a son to work under his mother. Further, loss of earning capacity taken by the WCC is in accordance with law. The claimant is a driver by profession. He has sustained fracture of right femur for which he has undergone operation and steel rods were implanted and he has also sustained fracture of clavicle and as such, the loss of earning capacity assessed by the doctor is in accordance with law. He relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of The New India Assurance Cross-objections. Ltd. v. Smt. Mahananda and others reported in 2009 Kant M.A.C. 476 (Kant) to contend that there is no prohibition under the law for the blood relatives to be the employer and employee and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. He relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of The New India Assurance Cross-objections. Ltd. v. Smt. Mahananda and others reported in 2009 Kant M.A.C. 476 (Kant) to contend that there is no prohibition under the law for the blood relatives to be the employer and employee and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Having heard the advocates appearing for the parties, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are as under : (i) Whether the claimant falls within the meaning of 'workman' defined under Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act ? (ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the WCC taking into consideration the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 60% is in accordance with law ? 11. Insofar as the first point is concerned, admittedly the claimant was working as a driver of the jeep belonging to the respondent No.2 herein. Respondent No.2 herein is none other than the mother of the claimant. The records clearly discloses that the mother of the claimant has four sons, one of whom expired much earlier, and among others one is taking care of agricultural land, one is working in a sugar factory and one is working as a driver in the jeep owned by his mother. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there is no provision which prohibits a son to work and claim to be a workman under his father, mother or any other relative. The issue raised by the appellant is no more res integra. This Court in The New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Smt. Mahananda and others reported in 2009 Kant M.A.C. 476 (Kant) has clearly laid down a law that there is no prohibition under the Act for the blood relatives to be employer and employee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to examine the said issue in the case of United India Insurance Cross-objections. Ltd. v. Jhonsa and others reported in 2001 ACJ 1682 wherein it is held that the death of two sons employed by their father as coolies and the Commissioner's finding thereon that there is employer and employee relationship do not constitute the substantial question of law. 12. Ltd. v. Jhonsa and others reported in 2001 ACJ 1682 wherein it is held that the death of two sons employed by their father as coolies and the Commissioner's finding thereon that there is employer and employee relationship do not constitute the substantial question of law. 12. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, it is not open to the appellant to reiterate the matter regarding relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and Respondent No.2 herein who is the mother of the claimant, which has been concluded earlier. Therefore, it has to be held that the claimant is a workman falling under Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 13. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant has sustained fracture of left shoulder (clavicle bone) and fracture of right femur, he has undergone surgery, steel rods were implanted. The disability has been assessed by the doctor who has not treated the claimant. The assessment of disability made by the doctor is on the higher side. Even for the amputation of leg below the knee, the loss of earning capacity is taken to the extent of 60%. In the instant case, for the fracture of femur, disability has been assessed to the extent of 65%. Further, for fracture of clavicle there cannot be any disability and it is an ornamental bone. Hence, I am of the opinion that taking into consideration the avocation of the claimant, it is appropriate to take the disability to an extent of 40% and award compensation. Hence, taking into consideration the income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month and taking 60% thereof, taking into consideration loss of earning capacity as 40% and applying relevant factor 181.37, the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 1,74,115/- as against Rs.2,61,173/- awarded by the WCC. 14. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Siby George and others reported in 2012 ACJ 2126 interest on the compensation has to be awarded from one month after the date of accident. In the instant case, the WCC has awarded interest on the compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of passing the order, which is contrary to law laid down by the Supreme Court. In the instant case, the WCC has awarded interest on the compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of passing the order, which is contrary to law laid down by the Supreme Court. Hence, the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from one month after the date of accident. 15. In view of the above, pass the following Order : Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and order dated 28.03.2008 passed in WCA:SR-115/2007 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub Division-I, Belagavi, is hereby modified. The claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,74,115/- with interest at 12% per annum from one month after the date of accident. The amount in deposit be transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Belagavi, along with all records. Excess amount, if any, be refunded to the appellant.