JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Through the instant appeal, the insurer of the vehicle concerned, concerts to seek reversal of the findings, returned upon issue No. 1, and, also upon his not meteing any success, vis-`-vis, the afore espousal, hence seeks modification, of, the amount of compensation, determined in the impugned award, and, wherethrough, the apposite indemnificatory liability, stood fastened, upon, the Insurer of the offending vehicle. 2. During the course of hearing of the instant appeal, and with the consent of the counsel(s), appearing for the contesting parties, the hereinafter formulated substantial questions of law, arise for determination: (i) Whether the petitioner being employee of respondent No. 1 suffered permanent disability by driving vehicle No. HP-64-0322 in the course of his employment, as alleged? OPP (ii) Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, from whom? OPP Substantial question of law No. 1 3. During the purported course of employment, of, the claimant, under respondent No. 1, and, whereat he was driving vehicle bearing No. HP 64-0322, he sustained hence disabling injuries, upon, his person, injuries whereof, find reflection in, the disability certificate, embodied in Ext. PW1/E. A perusal of the disability certificate, embodied in Ext. PW1/E, proven by PW-2, underscores, vis-`-vis, the disabled claimant, standing entailed, with a 10% permanent disability of loco-motor, (i) and, hence the compensation amount, in the manner computed, in parapgraph-23 of the impugned verdict, stood assessed, upon him. The learned counsel for the Insurer, whereupon whom the, apposite indemnificatory liability, stood fastened has, contended with much vigor, before this Court, that the mandate embodied, in, Section 3 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, and, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: "3. Employer's liability for compensation-(i) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: (i) enjoin adduction of firm and cogent evidence, hence making a visible display vis-`-vis, the disabling injuries, partial or total entailed, upon the person concerned, both arising out of, and during, the course of employment of the person concerned hence with his employer. He contends that since the disabled claimant, is the son, of the owner of the afore vehicle, (ii) thereupon, pers se, the extant petition being collusive, and, it being engulfed, with a pervasive vice, of, malafides (iii) and hence he also espouses, vis-`-vis, the disabled claimant, though suffering the disabling injuries upon his person, during, the accident involving the ill-fated vehicle, yet thereat he was not performing his duties, as, an employee, of his father, arrayed, as, respondent No. 1. The afore submission, is, contested, by the respondent herein, given hence RW-1, during, the Course, of, his cross- examination, rather acquiescing to a suggestion, vis-`-vis, there being no bar in the policy of insurance, as stood, executed interse the insurer, and the insured, (iv) whereupon the latter stood barred, to engage his son as a driver, upon, the relevant vehicle. Besides, also upon his being crossexamined, therein rather his rendering, an echoing, vis-`-vis, their being no documentary evidence, vis-`-vis, there existing no relationship of employer and employee, interse the disabled claimant, and, his father, arrayed, as respondent No. 1. Since, even though, the discharging onus, vis-`-vis, issue No. 1 was cast, upon, the disabled claimant, and, when during his testification, as rendered, vis-`-vis, issue No. 1, he during the course of his examination-in-chief, rather tendered his affidavit, borne in Ext. AW1/A, and, wherein, the afore echoing(s) are borne, (v) and, when the afore testification, was not endeavored to be belittled, vis-`-vis, its veracity, by the learned counsel for the Insurer, (vi) besides when the afore testification, also, during the course of cross-examination of RW-1, rather sequelled from the latter, an echoing, vis-`-vis, there existing no documentary proof, vis-`-vis, the lack of existence of any relationship of employer and employee, interse, the petitioner, and, the respondent No. 1, (vii) besides with the ill-fated vehicle, standing evidently, and, uncontrovertedly, categorized, hence as a goods vehicle, cumulatively, thereupon, the disabled claimant, for earning his livelihood, from his being engaged thereat, as a driver by respondent No. 1, his father, is to be concluded to be, hence engaged, under, an apt remuneration, rather by his father, arrayed as respondent No. 1. Since, no evidence, rather exists, vis-`-vis, any collusion, interse the disabled claimant and respondent No. 1, his father, rather when RW-1, did not, either step into the witness box, nor obviously, rendered any testification, supporting the afore contention of the insurer, vis-`-vis, his colluding with his son, (viii) thereupon, per-se, upon anvil of the disabled claimant, being son of respondent No. 1, cannot, muster any conclusion, qua there existing no statutory relationship, of employer and employee, between the petitioner, and, the respondent, nor hence it can be concluded, that, the insurer of the vehicle concerned, not being amenable, for the apposite indemnificatory liability standing fastened, upon, it. Substantial question of law No. 1 is answered accordingly. Substantial question of law No. 2 4. The relevant accident, occurred on 28.11.2007, and the statutory provisions, appertaining, to the computation of compensation are, hereat hence strived, to be the ones, rather holding prevalence thereat, or being in vogue thereat. However, the learned Commissioner appears, to, in paragraph-23 of the impugned verdict, hence compute compensation, not in tandem, with the governing therewith provisions, inasmuch, as the provisions governing, the, computation of compensation, vis-`-vis, disabled claimants, stood embodied, in Explanation-II of Section 4, of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, and, as brought into effect, since 1.7.1984, the apt provisions whereof stands extracted hereinafter: "4. Amount of compensation:-(i) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:- (a) Where death results from the injury (b)Where permanent total disablement results from the injury: (c) where permanent partial disablement results from the injury (i) An amount equal to [fifty percent] of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of [eighty thousand rupees] whichever is more; An amount equal to [sixty percent] of the monthly wages of the injured workman multiplied by the relevant factor, Or An amount of [ninety thousand rupees] whichever is more Explanation I. For the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b)"relevant factor", in relation to a workman means the factor specified in the second column of Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of that Schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the completed years of the age of the workman on his last birthday immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fell due. Explanation II:- Where the monthly wages of workman exceed [four thousand rupees], his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be [four thousand rupees] only; (c) where permanent partial disablement results from the injury (i) in the case of any injury specified in Part II of Schedule 1, such percentage of the compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury, and (ii) in the case of any injury not specified in Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity (as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner) permanently caused by the injury." Accepting the testification rendered by the disabled claimant, vis-`-vis, at the relevant time, his drawing a per-mensem salary of Rs. 5000/-, thereupon with apposite explanation-II, mandating, qua thereon, for, the purpose of clause-(a), and clause-(b) of Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, his being, statutorily presumed, to draw a per mensem salary, borne in a sum of Rs. 4000/- only, (i) thereupon with the disabled claimant, being declared, to stand entailed, with a total permanent disablement, hence, in consonance, with clause-(b) of Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the amount of compensation, is, to be computed, in the hereinafter manner: (i) Age of the petitioner at the time of accident: 29 years (ii) Monthly salary of deceased : Rs. 4000/- (60% of which comes to Rs. 2400/-) (iii) Relevant factor as schedule IV of the Act: 209.92 (iv) Disability 10% (v) Compensation amount= 2400x10x209.92 100 = Rs. 50,380/- The substantial question of law No. 2 is anwered in favour of the Insurer concerned. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurer is partly allowed, and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the claimants, are, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 50,380 /- along with interest at the rate of Rs. 12%, w.e.f. 28.12.2007, one month after the date of accident, till making, of, the deposit of the compensation amount. Also, the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.