JUDGMENT : Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. 1. Heard Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Insurance Company-appellant, Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent nos.1 to 6 and perused the material brought on record. 2. By way of the instant appeal, challenge has been made to the judgment and award dated 27.09.2005 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bulandshahar, in W.C.A. No.04 of 2002, Smt. Ramwati Devi and others Vs. Aftab Ahmad and another, whereby overall compensation amount Rs.3,51,080/-has been awarded under various heads to the claimant-respondents. 3. Learned counsels for both the parties agree that this case relates to the point of income and assessment of the compensation, thereon each point can be adjudicated upon and scrutinized merely by perusal of the certified copy of the award itself, therefore, there is no need for lower court's record and the case may be decided after hearing both the sides. 4. Consequently, this case is being decided on the strength of the material available on record. 5. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal as reflected from material available on record appear to be that one Chandra Pal Sharma, resident of Village Faridpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar was in the employment of Aftab Ahmad, owner of the Truck No.DL-1 GA / 2155 as driver and was earning Rs.4000/-per month. He was on duty on 30.01.2002 when the accident caused on account of slippage of jack, due to which the driver was crushed under the vehicle and died on account of sustaining injury. At that point of time, the deceased Chandra Pal Sharma was aged 40 years and he was possessing valid and effective driving licence and he was a skilled driver. 6. Relevant notice for compensation was given to the employer. Thereafter, the Insurance Company-appellant was also informed about the accident and was asked to give compensation to the family of the deceased. It was also claimed that the aforesaid offending truck was insured with the cover note no.0348319 for period 07.11.2001 to 06.11.2002. The overall compensation amount Rs.20,00,000/-along with accrued interest and expenses under various head was demanded by the claimant-respondents. 7. The case was contested whereby the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner after considering the merits of the case found it a case fit one for awarding compensation to the tune Rs.3,51,080/-along with 4% interest. The overall compensation amount Rs.20,00,000/-along with accrued interest and expenses under various head was demanded by the claimant-respondents. 7. The case was contested whereby the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner after considering the merits of the case found it a case fit one for awarding compensation to the tune Rs.3,51,080/-along with 4% interest. This amount was required to be paid by the insurer of the offending truck i.e. Insurance Company-appellant. Further penalty was also imposed upon opposite party no.1, (herein respondent no.7), truck owner for paying Rs.65,000/-. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company-appellant has moved before this Court by filing this appeal. Core contention raised before this Court is that monthly income of the deceased was not proved as was required under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the relationship of the employer and employee was not satisfactorily explained by the claimant respondents. It cannot be said that the deceased was working in the employment of respondent no.7 and he sustained injury in the alleged accident on the date and time as claimed by the claimant-respondent nos.1 to 6 in their claim petition. 9. Fact is that merely on the verbal claim of the wife of the deceased, monthly income was fixed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner which is not supported by any documentary evidence. The salary certificate has also not been brought on record. Had the deceased been in the employment of the truck owner, there must have been some documentary proof for payment of the salary but there is nothing on record which may justify that any relationship as employer and employee existed between the deceased and respondent no.7. 10. In view of above, it is doubtful whether the death of the deceased occurred during course of employment whereby Chandra Pal Sharma died. In view of this particular aspect of this case, no responsibility can be saddled with the Insurance Company -the appellant, insurer of the offending truck in question. The burden of proof was not properly discharged by claimant-respondent nos.1 to 6. 11. In view of this particular aspect of this case, no responsibility can be saddled with the Insurance Company -the appellant, insurer of the offending truck in question. The burden of proof was not properly discharged by claimant-respondent nos.1 to 6. 11. While replying to the aforesaid contentions, it has been claimed by the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents that testimony given by Ramwati Devi PW-1, wife of the deceased Chandra Pal Sharma was found to be consistent and nothing adverse emerged from her cross examination though cross examination was done by the Insurance Company-appellant and no proof in rebuttal regarding existence of relationship of the employer and the employee between the deceased and respondent no.7 was ever furnished or brought on record before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. Therefore, better testimony prevailed and it was rightly acted upon by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner though accepted the claim and awarded the compensation but failed to give proper quantum of interest on the overall compensation amount, for the reason that criterion fixed for awarding interest on the compensation amount under the provisions of Section 4 A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, stipulates 12% interest to be applied on the overall compensation amount. 12. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondents further added that it is admitted fact that no appeal for enhancement on that count has been presented even then in such case where statutory provisions have not been complied with and verbal objection raised then it should be treated to be a prayer for enhancement. Thus the interest awarded can be interfered with by this Court and it may be corrected so as to do substantial justice to the claimant-respondents. 13. Considered the rival submissions too. 14. In this case, insofar as testimony of Ramwati Devi PW-1 as reflected from the award impugned dated 27.09.2005 is concerned, obviously, every parameter was taken into consideration by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and aspect and magnitude of testimony of Ramwati Devi PW-1 that was forthcoming was rightly acted upon by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. There is nothing on record which may give credence to the claim of the Insurance Company-appellant that there was no relationship existing between the deceased and owner of the offending vehicle- respondent no.7 as the employer and the employee. 15. There is nothing on record which may give credence to the claim of the Insurance Company-appellant that there was no relationship existing between the deceased and owner of the offending vehicle- respondent no.7 as the employer and the employee. 15. Further no proper rebuttal has been done by the Insurance Company-appellant while it had full opportunity to contest the claim on that particular count as raised before this Court. Consequently, in such case where the case of the claimant-respondents stands proved by cogent and consistent testimony, it would not be arguable that there was no such relationship (the employer and the employee) in absence of supporting material thereof. 16. Admittedly, the interest to be awarded in the case was as per Section 4 A of the Workmen's Compensation Act to be fixed at the rate of 12% per annum, however, it was fixed at the rate of 4% per annum. Therefore, on that count verbal objection of the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent nos.1 to 6 is sustained. The award impugned is modified to the extent that on the overall compensation to the tune of Rs.3,51,080/-, interest rate shall be charged at the rate of 12% per annum instead of 4%. The verbal objection raised by learned counsel for the claimant-respondents is accepted, accordingly. 17. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 27.09.2005 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bulandshahar, in W.C.A. No.04 of 2002, Smt. Ramwati Devi and others Vs. Aftab Ahmad and another, stands modified to that extent and the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is liable to be rejected, whereas, the verbal cross objection raised by the claimant-respondent stands allowed as above. 18. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.