JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Heard. Dr. Lalit K. Sharma learned counsel appearing for the appellant has confined his submission to the following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether the learned Commissioner erred in granting interest upon the compensation so awarded in favour of the claimants from the date of accident rather than from the date of adjudication? (b) Whether the learned Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) erred in not appreciating that there was no relationship of employer and employee between deceased and the alleged employer and deceased had not died in the course of his employment with such employer? 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that respondent-Vinod Kumari (herein) filed a petition under Workmen’s Compensation Act on the grounds that Singh Ram her husband was employed as a workman with respondent-M/s Gian Chand Satpal Khanna and on 6th May, 1998 he died in the course of his employment as a result of the injuries suffered by him in an accident. As per the petitioner (Vinod Kumari) wages of the deceased at that time was Rs. 1800/- per month and his age at the time of death was 21 years as his date of birth was 19.1.1977. As per the petitioner, her deceased husband was engaged as a conductor with the truck of the employer and in the course of his employment he died as a result of an accident which took place in the course of his employment. 3. The claim of the petitioner was resisted by respondents in their reply filed by employer-M/s Gian Chand Sat Pal Khanna. They took the stand that deceased was not their employee and as such the petition was not maintainable against them. As per them, the person engaged upon the truck as driver was Pinu Ram whereas Mast Ram was the person who engaged with the same as conductor. Present appellant-Insurance Company who was respondent No.2 before learned Commissioner also resisted the claim, inter alia, on the grounds that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence nor the vehicle in issue was having requisite certificates, permits etc. and therefore liability of the employer if any could not be fastened upon them. Present appellant-Insurance Company who was respondent No.2 before learned Commissioner also resisted the claim, inter alia, on the grounds that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence nor the vehicle in issue was having requisite certificates, permits etc. and therefore liability of the employer if any could not be fastened upon them. With regard to the contention of claimant that her husband was engaged by M/s Gian Chand Satpal Khanna, the stand taken by present appellant-Insurance Company in its reply was that the claimant was put to strict proof qua the averments made in this respect. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties learned Commissioner framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the deceased was Workman within the meaning of Workman Compensation Act? OPP. 2. Whether the deceased died during the course of employment with respondent No.1? OPP. 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation. OPP” 5. On the basis of evidence both ocular as well as documentary, learned Commissioner returned the following findings on the said issues:- “Issue No.1 Yes. Issue No.2 Yes. Issue No.3 Yes. 6. Learned Commissioner allowed the claim petition and awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,76,358/-. in terms of the award under challenge details of which find mention in the relief clause of the same. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order so passed by learned Commissioner, appellant-Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as order passed by learned Commissioner. 9. I will deal with both the issues raised by Dr. Sharma learned counsel for the Insurance Company independently. (a) A perusal of the award under challenge demonstrates that learned Commissioner has awarded interest in favour of the claimant w.e.f. 5.6.1998 i.e. the date of the occurrence of accident. According to Dr. Sharma the award passed by learned Commissioner to this effect is unsustainable in law because interest if any could have been levied only from the date of passing of the award and not from the date when the accident took place. In support of his contention, Dr. Sharma has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Nasir, 2009 ACJ 2742 (SC). In my considered view the contention of Dr. In support of his contention, Dr. Sharma has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Nasir, 2009 ACJ 2742 (SC). In my considered view the contention of Dr. Sharma is not sustainable in law because pursuant to a subsequent judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Siby George and others, 2012 ACJ 2126 , the issue is no more res integra that interest is to be awarded by learned Commissioner in favour of the claimant from the date of accident. A perusal of the judgment (Supra) demonstrates that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to its earlier judgment passed in Mohd. Nasir (Supra) and held that the said judgment does not express the correct view as the earlier decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo. Vs. Shrinivas Sabatta, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC) and in Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Valsala K. 2000 ACJ 5(SC) were not taken into consideration in Mohd. Nasir case. Incidentally a perusal of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo’s case (Supra) demonstrates that the said judgment has been delivered by Hon’ble 04 Judges Bench whereas in Valsala K. (Supra) the judgment has been delivered by Hon’ble 03 Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd Nasir’s (Supra) is a 02 Hon’ble Judges Bench and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Siby George and others is also a 02 Hon’ble Judges Bench but the same has relied upon judgment delivered by Hon’ble 04 Judges Bench and 03 Judges Bench wherein this principle has been laid down that employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman by the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. Thus, the relevant date for determination of the rate of compensation is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim. That being so, in my considered view there is no error in the award passed by learned Commissioner wherein interest stands granted in favour of the claimant from the date of the accident. This issue is decided accordingly. (b). That being so, in my considered view there is no error in the award passed by learned Commissioner wherein interest stands granted in favour of the claimant from the date of the accident. This issue is decided accordingly. (b). The findings returned by learned Commissioner to the effect that the deceased died during the course of employment are based upon the statements of PW2-Phenu Ram as well as PW3-Vijay Pal who as per learned Commissioner duly corroborated the case of the claimant. A perusal of record demonstrates that claimant i.e. the wife of the deceased entered the witness box as PW1 whereas one Phenu Ram entered the witness box as PW2 and Vijay Pal entered the witness box as PW3. PW1-Vinod Kumari in her statement has categorically stated that her husband was engaged as a conductor with Truck No. HPS-9503 and he unfortunately died in the accident which took place on 6.5.1998 at the time of loading of sand. A perusal of the cross-examination of this witness demonstrates that her credibility could not be impeached by the respondents. Now incidentally PW2- Phenu Ram has deposed that he knew the deceased who used to work as a conductor and on 6.5.1998 they had gone to Duttnagar for the purpose of loading of sand and it was the deceased who was the conductor with the truck concerned. This witness (PW2) was the driver of the ill-fated truck and the factum of his being the driver of the truck is apparent and evident even from the reply filed to the claim petition by the employer. A perusal of the statement of this witness demonstrates that his evidence is cogent, reliable and trustworthy. Similarly PW3-Vijay Pal who is an eye witness to the incident has also duly corroborated the case of the petitioner that her husband died in the course of sand being loaded in the ill-fated truck in which he was the conductor which sand all of a sudden fell upon the deceased. In this background, in my considered view, the conclusion arrived at by learned Commissioner that the claimant had duly proved and corroborated the fact that her deceased husband was engaged as a conductor with truck No. HPS-9503 owned by M/s Gian Chand Satpal Khanna is duly borne out from the records of the case. Dr. In this background, in my considered view, the conclusion arrived at by learned Commissioner that the claimant had duly proved and corroborated the fact that her deceased husband was engaged as a conductor with truck No. HPS-9503 owned by M/s Gian Chand Satpal Khanna is duly borne out from the records of the case. Dr. Sharma has drawn the attention of this Court towards the testimony of RW-1 however, in my considered view the statement of said respondent lends no credibility to the case of the appellant-Insurance Company as the bald assertion of RW-1 has not been corroborated by any substantial material on record. Dr. Sharma could not satisfactorily reply to the query of the Court that as to why Mast Ram, who as per employer, was engaged as a conductor with the truck in issue was not examined to prove the same. Therefore there is no infirmity with the findings that the deceased was engaged as workman by M/s Gian Chand Satpal Khanna. This issue is also answered accordingly. Therefore, in view of my findings as there is no merit in the present appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed, so also pending applications if any.