ORDER : SANJAY YADAV, J. 1. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. Appellant takes exception to award dated 2.3.2016; whereby, the Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 has compensated the death of Tulsiram Prajapati and has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,78,575/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 16.4.2011 within 90 days failing which the appellant would be liable for 10% penalty. 3. Tulsiram Prajapati engaged as helper while carrying out the repairing and maintenance of electric line over electric pole at Laxmipuram, Bahodapur, Gwalior got electric shock from the High Tension Line on 16.4.2011 and during course of treatment succumbed to the injuries on 26.4.2011. Besides lodging police complaint, respondent parents filed Claim Case before the Commissioner under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 for a compensation of Rs. 9,75,000/- with interest and penalty. Present appellant denied their liability and contended that Tulsiram was not their employee but an employee of the contractor M/s Gayatri Progressive Foundation Creation Construction and Consultancy to whom the maintenance and repairing of High Tension Line was contracted out. It was also contended that the deceased was not on duty on 16.4.2011 at 10:30 when the accident occurred but was engaged in private work. The contractor who was later-on impleaded more or less supported the present appellant and denied its liability to compensate. Parties led evidence to establish their respective stand. 4. The appellant in order to establish that the deceased was not their workman and that he was not present on 16.4.2011 and met an accident while doing some private work and that there was no causal connection between his death and employment examined Assistant Engineer and the Manager of the Contractor. 5. The Commissioner besides finding the inconsistency in the statement of the appellant and the contractor as regard to the place of work where the deceased was deployed also found the appellant's evidence wanting of the fact as regard to the attendance register which was said to be in custody of the Junior Engineer who was not examined, thus creating a doubt over the authenticity of Ex.D.1 the attendance sheet said to be filled by the Manager of Contractor which does not find the name of the workman. The appellant having failed to account for as to the attendance register led the Commissioner return following findings: HINDI MATTER Furthermore, the appellant has miserably failed to establish the shift duty allocated to workers whose name find in Ex.D.1. 6. The Commissioner further found that, whereas the appellant in its written statement has stated that the work place of the deceased was Transport Nagar, whereas the Contractor in its reply stated that the deceased was deployed to work at Kishanbagh. Thus, the appellant and the Contractor could not with certainty establish their respective contention which led the Commissioner observe: HINDI MATTER 7. These findings when tested on the anvil of the evidence, oral and documentary on record, cannot be faulted with as would warrant any interference. 8. Another contention raised by the appellant is that the Commissioner erred in granting interest from the date of accident, reliance is placed on the decisions Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. The Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2009 LLR 350 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and another (2007) 1 SCC (L& S) 643. It is however found from the impugned award that the Trial Court has relied on the decision Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2014) 2 SCC 298 , wherein it is held: "8. 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. 9. Following the aforesaid judgments, this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Siby George and others (supra) reiterated the legal position and held as follows: "11. 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. 9. Following the aforesaid judgments, this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Siby George and others (supra) reiterated the legal position and held as follows: "11. The Court then referred to a Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi and approved it insofar as it followed the decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo. 12. The decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo was by a four-judge Bench and in Valsala K. by a three-judge Bench of this Court. Both the decisions were, thus, fully binding on the Court in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir, each of which was heard by two Judges. But the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K. were not brought to the notice of the Court in the two later decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir. 13. In the light of the decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K., it is not open to contend that the payment of compensation would fall due only after the Commissioner's order or with reference to the date on which the claim application is made. The decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir insofar as they took a contrary view to the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K. do not express the correct view and do not make binding precedents." 10. 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. No cost." 9. In view whereof, the amount of interest from the date of accident cannot be faulted with. 10. Taking any view of the matter, since the findings does not suffer from vice of perversity no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 11. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.