ORDER : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. This Misc. appeal has been filed under Section 30 of Workman Compensation Act, 1923, against the award dated 16.2.2012, passed by the Commissioner Workman Compensation Authority, Jaipur District (First) Jaipur, in claim petition no. WCC/F/80/2009, whereby the claim petition filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 has been allowed and a sum of Rs 3.32,055/- has been awarded to them along with interest @ 12% p.a from 15.10.2007. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 stating that deceased was Khaklasi on the Truck No. RJ-02-GA 0936 and on 16.9.2007, the deceased Nemi was sleeping near the truck, in the morning about 6:00 AM when the driver drove the truck which ran over the body of the deceased. It was further stated in the claim petition that at the time of accident deceased was 22 years old and earning salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month along with Rs. 1,000/- per month as allowance. After hearing counsel for the parties and analyzing the material on record awarded compensation as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the driver was not holding valid driving license, permit and fitness certificate and therefore on account of breach of terms and conditions of the policy, the appellant company could not be fastened the liability to indemnify the award amount. He has further argued that the claim was not maintainable on the basis of the non-compliance of section 10, since no notice as per the provision was served upon the insurance company. He has further argued that the claimants are entitled for compensation only in case if the provisions and the conditions of the insurance policy are not violated and the claim is payable in accordance with the contract executed between the insured and the insurer. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents claimants has argued that the Commissioner has rightly awarded compensation after having gone through the material placed before it. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material placed before me. 6. The Commissioner after analyzing the material available on record passed the impugned award and no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this matter. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material placed before me. 6. The Commissioner after analyzing the material available on record passed the impugned award and no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this matter. The claimants before the Commissioner in the claim petition filed an affidavit specifically stating that deceased Nemi was engaged as Khalasi on the Truck No. RJ-02-GA-0936, at the time of accident under the employment of non-claimant No.4, and taking into consideration the age of 22 years of the deceased, awarded compensation of Rs. 3,32,055/-, applying relevant factor of 221.37. As regards interest part is concerned, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh v. National Insurance Company and Ors., in Civil Appeal 8/2014 decided on 2/1/2014, it has been held as under: "We have perused the aforesaid judgment. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. This Court considered the earlier judgment relied upon by the High Court and observed that the judgments in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed (2007) 2 SCC 349 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [ (2009) 6 SCC 280 ] were per incuriam having been rendered without considering the earlier decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata [ (1976) 1 SCC 289 ]. In the aforesaid judgment, upon consideration of the entire matter, a four-judge Bench of this Court had held that the compensation has to be paid from the date of the accident. ......... 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" 7. In view of the above, I do not find any manifest error or illegality in the impugned award. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.