JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. A.J. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. This appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1923 Act’) is preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Golaghat in W.C. Case No.41/2009. 3. This appeal was admitted by this Court by the order dated 07.01.2011 on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether, Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation can impose liability of an award on Insurance Company without receiving any premium by the appellant company to cover the risk? 2. Whether Commissioner can give a direction to indemnify the employer without following the Section 14 of the W.C. Act, 1923 as well as Rule 39(5) of the Workmen’s Compensation Rule 1924 when there is a specific denial of liability? 4. The case, in brief, is that the respondent No.1 while serving as Driver in a Bus bearing Registration No.AS-02-6393, the said vehicle met with an accident on 04.04.2004, as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries on his person and having suffered physical and mental trauma, he had lost his earning capacity. The accident was registered as Jhaklabandha P.S. Case No.36/2004. The respondent No.2 herein is the owner of the offending vehicle, which was duly insured with the appellant having a valid insurance policy as the same was valid as on the date of the incident. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the same accident, the Handyman of the Bus was also injured, who filed a separate case before the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Golaghat, which was registered as W.C. Case No.43/2009, against which, there is a separate appeal pending before this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the insurance policy and submitted that there was no mention in the said policy that risk of the Driver as well as the Handyman is to be covered by the insurance policy and, as such, the learned Commissioner has erred in extending the insurance coverage to the Driver of the present case and in awarding compensation. Therefore, the award passed against the appellant is not maintainable. Therefore, the award passed against the appellant is not maintainable. It is also submitted that by his evidence, the Assistant Branch Manager of the appellant had proved the insurance policy as Exhibit-A. It is submitted that his deposition to the effect that the insurance policy did not cover the risk of the Driver of the vehicle was totally ignored and, as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered with. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that as the appellant had denied the liability arising in the present case in respect of the respondent No.1, the learned Commissioner had erred in law in awarding compensation against the appellant for the purpose of indemnifying the respondent No.2, the employer and, as such, the impugned judgment is vitiated for non-following the provision of Section 14 of the 1923 Act as well as Rule 39(5) of the Workmen’s Compensation Rules, 1924. 8. Mr. S.K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the Driving Licence of the respondent No.1 which was marked as Exhibit-10 and pointed out the date of birth of the respondent No.1 recorded therein was 01.05.1968. He further submitted that taking into account the date of birth, on the date of the accident i.e., 04.04.2004, the respondent No.1 was 36 years old and, as such, the learned Commissioner erred in law in ignoring the said evidence by taking the age of the respondent No.1/claimant as 30 years old and thereby wrong multiplier was applied which instead of 207.98 ought to have been 194.64, if at all any amount of compensation was found to be payable to the respondent No.1. 9. Per contra, Mr. A.J. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, has referred to the evidence of the Assistant Branch Manager of the appellant herein and submits that the said witness had categorically admitted that the exclusion of the risk of the Driver was admittedly not entered in the insurance policy. It is further submitted that as no exclusion was mentioned in the insurance policy (Exhibit-A), the risk of the Driver is squarely covered by the provisions of proviso to Section 147(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1988 Act’). 10. It is further submitted that as no exclusion was mentioned in the insurance policy (Exhibit-A), the risk of the Driver is squarely covered by the provisions of proviso to Section 147(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1988 Act’). 10. Upon the substantial question of law No.1 as formulated by this Court, it appears that the issue as to whether the risk of the Driver is covered by the statutory insurance policy issued under Section 147 of the 1988 Act or not, has been well settled by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Konjengbam Ibo Singh, reported in (2008) 3 GLR 547: (2008) 1 GLT 868: 2009 ACJ 2325 , wherein this Court has held that the risk of the Driver is statutorily covered under Section 147 (1)(b) of the 1988 Act. The said view is also reiterated by this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Juti Bala Das and others, reported in 2012 ACJ 2554 : (2011) 6 GLR 94: (2011) 5 GLT 57, wherein it has been held that the risk of the Driver is not excluded under the provisions of Section 147(1)(b) of the 1988 Act. 11. Abiding by the ratio of both the cases cited above, this Court is inclined to answer the first substantial question of law in affirmative against the appellant by holding that when a vehicle is insured under the statutory policy or Act liability policy, the risk of the Driver of the offending vehicle is also statutorily covered under Section 147 (1)(b) of the 1988 Act and no separate premium or insurance is required in view of the provisions of proviso appended to Section 147(1)(b) of the 1988 Act. The learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation has the jurisdiction to impose liability of award upon the appellant/insurer. 12. In view of the decision on the first substantial question of law, as a natural corollary, the second substantial question of law is also decided in affirmative against the appellant by holding that the risk of the Driver of the offending vehicle is covered by the provisions of Section 147(1)(b) of the 1988 Act and the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation has the jurisdiction to direct the appellant/insurer to indemnify the employer as the denial of liability for compensating the injured Driver in this case is not sustainable. 13. 13. However, in view of the unimpeachable evidence in the form of Exhibit-10 (Driving Licence), which records the date of birth of the respondent No.1 as 01.05.1968, the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Golaghat holding that the respondent No.1 was 30 years old at the time of accident, is not sustainable as he is found to be 36 years old on 04.04.2004 i.e., the date of accident. Hence, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is sustained on the issue of applying of a wrong multiplier by holding that the respondent No.1 was 36 years old, while maintaining the income of the respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month, the applicable multiplier would be 194.64 and therefore, the amount of compensation is re-calculated as follows: 60% X 4,000 X 194.64 X 30% = Rs.1,16,784/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixteen Thousand, Seven Thousand Eighty Four only). 14. The re-calculation is done by this Court as because the accident was of the year 2004 and by now almost 13 years have elapsed and therefore, if the matter is again remanded for re-calculation, it will cause further delay in the matter. 15. Resultantly, the appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation before the jurisdictional Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Golaghat within a period of 2(two) months from today. As awarded by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Golaghat, the amount indicated above shall carry interest @ 12% per annum in terms of the judgment and order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Golaghat in W.C. Case No.41/2009. 16. The appeal, therefore, stands partly allowed in view of the modification of quantum of the award. 17. LCR be returned forthwith.