JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the order passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation Act-cum-Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P, in Petition No. 4-ECA/2 of 2013, titled as Smt. Sarswati Devi and others vs. Smt. Bir Devi and another, dated 22.01.2015, vide which, an application filed under Section 22 of the Employee's Compensation Act by respondents No. 1 to 5 herein (applicants before the learned Commissioner) was answered by the learned Commissioner in the following terms:- "20. In view of my findings on issues No. 1 to 5 above, this application succeeds and is hereby allowed and the applicants are held entitled for compensation of Rs. 7,69,600/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f 13.2.2013 (one month after the accident) till deposit of entire amount from the respondent No. 2. On the point of apportionment aforesaid amount of compensation, it needs to be mentioned that applicant No. 1 is widow of deceased employees, applicants No. 2 to 4 are his unmarried daughters and son and applicant No. 5 is the mother and, therefore, the applicant No. 1 being widow of deceased employee is entitled for more share in the aforesaid amount of compensation than rest of the respondents and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, applicant No. 1, being widow of deceased employee, is held entitled for 40% amount of compensation awarded aforesaid; whereas applicants No. 2 to 5 will take rest 60% amount of compensation in equal shares. 21. The compensation amount on its deposit be invested in Fixed Deposit in some Nationalized Bank at least for a period of one year, in respect of applicants No. 1, 2 and 5, whereas in regard to minor applicants No. 3 and 4, it be invested till their attaining the age of majority. The file after its due completion be consigned to record room." 2. This appeal was admitted on 08.04.2019, on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the Learned Commissioner below was correct in awarding interest on the award amount in contravention with the settled provisions of law and particularly those contained in section 4(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in view of the fact that no intimation qua the accident was ever given to the Insurance Company? 2. Whether the Learned Commissioner below was correct in awarding interest on the award amount in contravention with the settled provisions of law and particularly those contained in section 4(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in view of the fact that no intimation qua the accident was ever given to the Insurance Company? 2. That whether Learned Commissioner below erred in taking the factor as 192.4 instead of applicable factor i.e., 192.14 as per the Employee's Compensation Act? 3. Whether the appellant is not able to indemnify the insured, since the deceased Sh. Som Raj (Driver of Bus bearing registration No. HP-64A-1709) did not have valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident as license in question i.e., Driving License No. 65034/Mon/TV/10 was fake and fraudulent? 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the claimants filed an application under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act inter alia on the ground that Sh. Som Raj (deceased) was engaged as a driver by Smt. Bir Devi (respondent No. 1 before learned Commissioner) with her bus, bearing registration No. HP-64A-1709. He was engaged on a monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/-and in addition, he was also being paid an amount of Rs. 100/-per day as diet money. On 13.01.2013, the offending vehicle met with an accident, while on its way from Parwanoo to Kohu Gambharpul, at Ramshehar-Doli road, as a result of which, the bus rolled down 250 feet, resulting in the death of Sh. Som Raj. Deceased was engaged as a driver by the owner of the bus about four months prior to the unfortunate accident. FIR No. 5/13 was registered at Police Station Ramshehar on 13.01.2013. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted at Regional Hospital, Bilaspur, on 14.01.2013. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 38 years. Deceased-employee died in the course of his employment and the factum of his death was in the knowledge of the employer, yet no compensation was paid by her to the claimants within one month as from the date of the accident. Accordingly, the claimants claimed compensation in terms of the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act as also for imposition of penalty in terms of the said Act. 4. The employer though admitted deceased Sh. Accordingly, the claimants claimed compensation in terms of the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act as also for imposition of penalty in terms of the said Act. 4. The employer though admitted deceased Sh. Som Raj to be her employee, engaged a driver on the offending vehicle and that he had died while on duty in an accident, yet, the employer denied that the wages of the deceased were Rs. 8,000/- per month. She stated that wages of the deceased employee were Rs. 6,000/- per month and that she had incurred all the expenses of the treatment and as also of the last rites of the deceased-employee. As per the said respondent, the offending vehicle was duly insured with an Insurance Company and she had duly informed the Insurance Company about the accident and if compensation was to be paid to the claimants, then the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the claimants. 5. The Insurance Company resisted the claim inter alia on the ground that the claim petition was not maintainable as the terms of the insurance policy stood breached. It was also the stand of the Insurance Company that as the driving licence of the driver was not placed on record, therefore, it had to be inferred that driver was not possessing any valid driving licence and though the owner of the vehicle was aware of the fact that driver was not possessing valid driving licence, yet, she handed over the vehicle to the driver who was not possessing the licence to drive it which amounted to breach of the insurance policy. It was contended on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company that as the factum of the accident was not intimated to it by the owner, therefore, it was not liable to indemnify the insured qua the liability towards the payment of interest and penalty. Wages of the deceased were also not admitted as claimed by the claimants. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Commissioner framed the following issues:- "1. Whether deceased Som Raj was employed as driver by respondent No. 1, with her bus bearing registration No. HP-64A-1709, on monthly wages of Rs. 8000/- plus Rs. 100 per day as died charges, as alleged? .....OP A 2. Whether deceased employee had died during and in the course of his employment on 13.01.2013 with respondent No. 1, as alleged? ....OPA 3. 8000/- plus Rs. 100 per day as died charges, as alleged? .....OP A 2. Whether deceased employee had died during and in the course of his employment on 13.01.2013 with respondent No. 1, as alleged? ....OPA 3. If Issues No. 1 and 2 above are proved in affirmative, whether applicants are entitled for compensation alongwith penalty, as prayed for? ......OPA 4. Whether the offending vehicle was not insured with respondent No. 2 and as such, it is not bound to indemnify respondent No. 1, as alleged? ..OPR-2. 5. Whether deceased employee was not holding any valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? ....OPR-2. 6. Relief." 7. On the strength of the evidence which was led by the parties, the Issues so framed were answered as under by the learned Commissioner:- Issue No. 1 Yes. Issue No. 2 Yes. Issue No. 3 Partly Yes and partly no. Issue No. 4 No. Issue No. 5 No. Relief The application is allowed, per operative part of the order." 8. After holding that the deceased was engaged as a driver with the offending vehicle, which had met with an accident on 13.01.2013, in which, driver of the same lost his life, learned Commissioner held that the stand taken by the Insurance Company before it was totally unwarranted as when the vehicle in issue was engaged by the Insurance Company, then, it ought to have had indemnified the insurer after the accident took place, in which, employee of the insured lost his life. Learned Commissioner also held that the registration number of the offending vehicle was mentioned in the claim petition. Thus even after the details of the vehicle came to the knowledge of the Insurance Company, rather than performing its duty, the Insurance Company raised such objections, which were untrue and incorrect even to its own knowledge. As far as the aspect of income of the claimant is concerned, learned Commissioner held that AW2 Sarswati Devi, who was the widow of the deceased-employee, had duly deposed in her examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ext. AW-l/A that her husband was employed as a driver with the offending vehicle by the owner on monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/-, and in addition, he was also being paid Rs. 100/- as diet money. Learned Commissioner held that this witness being the wife of the deceased-employee was the best person to know about the salary of the deceased. AW-l/A that her husband was employed as a driver with the offending vehicle by the owner on monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/-, and in addition, he was also being paid Rs. 100/- as diet money. Learned Commissioner held that this witness being the wife of the deceased-employee was the best person to know about the salary of the deceased. It also held that in her cross examination, this witness had reiterated that monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 8000/- and had denied that monthly salary of deceased was only Rs. 6000/-. Learned Commissioner also held that the employer had not placed any material on record to substantiate that the monthly wages of the deceased were not Rs. 8000 and that Rs. 100/- was not being paid to him daily as diet money. On these bases, learned Commissioner held that wages of the deceased were to be taken as Rs. 8000+3000= Rs. 11,000/- per month. Learned Commissioner held that even if the wages of the deceased- employee were to be taken as Rs. 6,000/- per month and Rs. 100/- was taken to be as daily allowance being given to him by the employer, then also, it would not improve the case of the respondent therein as the maximum cap of monthly wages was to be taken as Rs. 8000/- per month in terms of maximum limit fixed by the Central government vide SO 1258(E) dated 31st May, 2010. Learned Court further held that date of birth of the deceased was 17.6.1975 and as on the date when the accident took place, his age was 37 years, and therefore, factor which was applicable in the instant case, would be as is mentioned against the age of 37 years in Schedule IV of the Act, which was 192.4. On these bases, learned Commissioner held that amount of compensation would come to 50% of the monthly salary of the deceased multiplied by the relevant factor or an amount of Rs. l,20,000/- whichever was more. Learned Commissioner calculated the compensation payable to the claimant as 192.4 x 8000 x 1/2 = 7,69,600/-. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 10. l,20,000/- whichever was more. Learned Commissioner calculated the compensation payable to the claimant as 192.4 x 8000 x 1/2 = 7,69,600/-. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the order passed by learned Commissioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned Commissioner has erred in not appreciating that the factor which was applicable in the case of the deceased was 192.14 and not 192.4 as was granted by the learned Commissioner. He has further argued that the learned Court below has also erred in not appreciating that income of the deceased was not proved on record, and therefore also, the order so passed by the learned Commissioner was not sustainable. No other point was urged. 11. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants has argued that there was no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Commissioner as it has rightly granted the compensation as was determined by it and the Workmen's Compensation Act being a beneficial legislation, the order so passed under it by learned Commissioner warranted no interference. 12. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the order passed by the learned Commissioner as well as the record of the case. 13. All the substantial questions of law are being answered together. A perusal of the record demonstrates that after the unfortunate accident took place, the employer came to the rescue of the injured employee and spent money on his treatment, and after his unfortunate death, assisted the claimants in bringing home the dead body as also in performance of his last rites. These facts have been admitted by AW2 Smt. Sarswati Devi in her cross examination. It is not borne out from the record that at any stage any demand was raised by the claimants from the employer for the grant of compensation in terms of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and this aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the learned Commissioner which is duly reflected from para 18 of the order passed by it. Taking into consideration the conduct of the employer, learned Commissioner held and rightly so that it was not a case wherein employer was to be burdened with compensation and penalty and interest would be served if Insurance Company was directed to indemnify the claimants on behalf of the insured also to pay interest to them. In my considered view, the findings so returned by the learned Commissioner are justified in the peculiar facts of the case, and therefore, it cannot be said that learned Commissioner erred in awarding interest on the award amount. As far as the plea of the appellant, that it was not liable to indemnify the claimants on behalf of the insured as the deceased was not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle, is concerned, it has been rightly held by the learned Commissioner that as there was nothing on record to demonstrate that either the deceased was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence or the insured was aware of the fact that deceased was not having valid driving licence, yet she allowed the deceased to drive the vehicle. Besides this, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, in the event of death of the workman, his legal heirs are to be compensated if it is proved on record that there was a relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the employer and further the workman had died during the course of the employment. These facts stood duly proved in this case as it is not in dispute that deceased Som Raj was engaged as a driver by Smt. Bir Devi and deceased Som Raj lost his life while driving bus bearing No. HP-64A-1709 on 13.01.2013. 14. As far as the point raised by learned Counsel for the appellant that the factor of 192.14 was to be applied in the case in issue and not the 192.4, is concerned, there is merit in the said contention of learned Counsel for the appellant. 15. It is not in dispute that the age of the deceased as on the date of death was more than 37 years. In terms of Schedule IV, the factor which ought to have been applied was 192.14 but learned Commissioner below erred in applying the factor of 192.4 in place of 192.14. The award passed by the learned Commissioner is therefore liable to be modified to this extent. 16. In terms of Schedule IV, the factor which ought to have been applied was 192.14 but learned Commissioner below erred in applying the factor of 192.4 in place of 192.14. The award passed by the learned Commissioner is therefore liable to be modified to this extent. 16. However, remaining part of the award calls for no interference and the Award under challenge is therefore modified accordingly. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 17. The appeal is therefore partly allowed by modifying the award to the effect that the claimants shall be entitled for compensation by applying the factor of 192.14 instead of 192.4 and thus, the claimants shall be entitled for compensation in the following terms:- 192.14 x 8000 x 1/2 =7,68,560/- 18. Appeal stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.