JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - Since common issues are involved, the matters are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. These appeals are filed by both the employers as well as the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned Principal/I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharwad, and the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Dharwad ('Commissioner' for short) in ECA No.1/2015 whereby the Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.5,47,240/- with interest at 12% p.a. and fastened the liability on all the respondents therein, (respondent Nos.1 to 3) and to equally deposit the compensation. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Commissioner. 3. Mfa No.100264/2018 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. MFA No.104349/2017 is filed by respondent No.1 and MFA No.100224/2018 is filed by respondent No.2 challenging fastening of liability to pay compensation. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the first petitioner is the wife and the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are the children of the deceased-Basavanneppa Basappa Kotri. Claim petition was filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner contending that the deceased was the driver under respondent Nos.1 and 2 for many years prior to the accident which occurred on 27.06.2014 at about 8.00 am, when the deceased was driving Bolero ZLX Model bearing Chassis No.ESF 79559 white colour, belonging to the 2nd respondent in order to deliver the same at Udupi show room near Toppal Bridja, Arbail, Yellapur, Uttar Kannada District, he was murdered by some unknown miscreants and the vehicle was stolen. Deceased Basavanneppa was aged about 55 years and was earning the wages of Rs.15,000/- per month along with batta of Rs.300/- per day. The petitioners were completely depending upon the earnings of the deceased. Death of Basavanneppa took place during the course of employment. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 5. The 1st respondent in the additional objections/written statement admitted that there was employer-employee relationship between them and the deceased. The death of Basavanneppa took place during the course of employment and respondents 1 and 2 prayed to award compensation by directing respondent No.3 to pay the compensation, as the vehicle was insured with respondent No3. 5. The 1st respondent in the additional objections/written statement admitted that there was employer-employee relationship between them and the deceased. The death of Basavanneppa took place during the course of employment and respondents 1 and 2 prayed to award compensation by directing respondent No.3 to pay the compensation, as the vehicle was insured with respondent No3. Respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Limited in its objections opposed the petition on the ground that there is no employee-employer relationship between the deceased and respondent Nos.1 and 2 and there cannot be two employers. It has denied that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and batta of Rs.300/- per day. No road traffic accident took place and the liability to pay the compensation cannot be fastened on the insurance company. As the deceased was murdered by the miscreants, the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for short) is not applicable. They have issued policy in favour of Bolero vehicle under the Insurance Act and the question of indemnifying respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay compensation does not arise. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioners prove that there was a relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and respondent No.1 and 2? 2. Whether the petitioners prove that the incident occurred during the course of employment of the 2nd respondent's Bolero ZLX model bearing Ch.No.ESF- 79559? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, from whom and how much compensation amount is recoverable? 4. What order or award? 7. The petitioners, in order to establish their claim, examined the petitioner No.1 as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P- 1 to P-7. Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.R-1 by consent. 8. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Commissioner has held that there is employee-employer relationship between the deceased and respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the death of the deceased had taken place by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and granted compensation of Rs.5,47,240/- with interest at 12% p.a. 9. 8. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Commissioner has held that there is employee-employer relationship between the deceased and respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the death of the deceased had taken place by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and granted compensation of Rs.5,47,240/- with interest at 12% p.a. 9. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, MFA Nos.104349/2017 and 100224/2018 are filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively, challenging the liability fastened on them to pay compensation to an extent of 1/3rd each and the claimants have preferred MFA No.100264/2018 seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. Sri. B.S. Sangati, learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and batta of Rs.300/- per day and the Commissioner has taken the wages of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month which is not in accordance with the Act and prayed for enhancement of compensation. 11. Sri. S. K. Kayakamath, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2(employers) appellants in MFA No.104349/2017 and MFA No.100224/2018 contended that the policy taken by the respondents/employers is F-Motor Trade Road Risk Policy and it covers the death of the driver and contended that the Commissioner ought to have fastened the entire liability on the insurance company to pay the compensation. Learned counsel further contended that the age of the deceased was 57 years as per the date of birth mentioned in Ex.P-7-Driving License and the Commissioner has committed an error in taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 55 based on the postmortem report-Ex.P-3. 12. Sri. G.N. Raichur, learned counsel for the insurance company contended that the death of the deceased was due to murder and the same would not come under the course of employment and it is not an accident. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel argued that IMT 39 A is applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. In MFA No.104349/2017, this Court by order dated 25.11.2019, framed the following substantial question of law: Whether the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation has committed an error of law in not directing respondent No.5 to satisfy the entire amount of compensation awarded by it specifically in view of the fact that the vehicle in question was insured with respondent No.5? 14. In MFA No.104349/2017, this Court by order dated 25.11.2019, framed the following substantial question of law: Whether the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation has committed an error of law in not directing respondent No.5 to satisfy the entire amount of compensation awarded by it specifically in view of the fact that the vehicle in question was insured with respondent No.5? 14. In MFA No.100224/2018, this Court by order dated 25.11.2019, framed the following substantial question of law: Whether the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation has committed an error of law in not directing respondent No.6 to satisfy the entire amount of compensation awarded by it specifically in view of the fact that the vehicle in question was insured with respondent No.6? 15. Respondent No.5 in MFA No.104349/2017 and respondent No.6 in MFA No.100224/2018 is the New India Assurance Company Limited and therefore on comprehensive analysis of the matter, common questions of law would be more appropriate, hence, the substantial questions of law are framed as under: i) Whether the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation has committed an error of law in not directing the New India Assurance Company Limited (Respondent No.3 before the Commissioner) to satisfy the entire compensation awarded by it, specifically, in view of the fact that the vehicle in question was insured with it? ii) Whether the Commissioner has committed an error of law in taking into consideration the wages of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month instead of Rs.15,000/-per month? iii) Whether the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation has committed an error of law in considering the age of the deceased as 55 years by ignoring the date of birth in Ex.P-7? 16. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have admitted that deceased Basavanneppa Basappa Kotri was employed as the driver under them and he was discharging his duties as such on 27.06.2014. The Commissioner held that Basavanneppa Basappa Kotri was murdered and that the death took place in the accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The insurance company has not challenged the said finding. In the case of Smt. Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2000) AIR SC 1930 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus: " 14. The insurance company has not challenged the said finding. In the case of Smt. Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2000) AIR SC 1930 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus: " 14. Applying the principles laid down in the above case to the facts of the case in hand, we find that the deceased, a driver of the auto rickshaw, was duty bound to have accepted the demand of fare paying passengers to transport them to the place of their destination. During the course of this duty, if the passengers had decided to commit an act of felony of stealing the auto rickshaw and in the course of achieving the said object of stealing the auto rickshaw, they had to eliminate the driver of the auto rickshaw then it cannot but be said that he death so caused to the driver of the auto rickshaw was an accidental murder. The stealing of the auto rickshaw was the object of the felony and the murder that was caused in the said process of stealing the auto rickshaw is only incidental to the act of stealing of the auto rickshaw. Therefore, it has to be said that on the facts and circumstances of this case the death of the deceased (Dasarath Singh) was caused accidentally in the process of committing the theft of the auto rickshaw. Xxxxx 18. In the Instant case, as we have noticed the facts, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the murder of the deceased (Dasarath Singh) was due to an accident airing out of the use of motor vehicle. Therefore, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled for compensation as claimed by them and the High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the death of Dasarath Singh was not caused by an accident involving the use of motor vehicle." 17. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, it can be held that, stealing of the Bolero was the object of the felony and the murder that was caused in the said process of stealing the Bolero is only incidental to the act of stealing of the Bolero. Therefore, it has to be said that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the death of the deceased- Basavanneppa was caused accidentally in the process of committing theft of the Bolero. Therefore, it has to be said that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the death of the deceased- Basavanneppa was caused accidentally in the process of committing theft of the Bolero. The murder of the deceased- Basavanneppa was due to the accident arising out of and in the course of employment during the use of the motor vehicle. Therefore, the Commissioner was right in holding that the death of Basavanneppa took place during the course of employment. 18. The vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. Ex.R-1 is the policy schedule cum certificate of insurance, which is marked by consent. Ex.R-1 is Trade Road Risk-Pick- F Policy. The period of coverage is between 29.03.2014 - 28.03.2015. The accident took place on 27.06.2014 during the validity of the insurance policy. The premium collected towards own damage is Rs.11,227/- and towards 3rd party is Rs.1,387/-. In total, a premium of Rs.14,174/- had been collected. Ex.R-1 is F-Motor Trade-Road Risk Policy. The death of the driver is not excluded in Ex.R-1. Respondent No.3 as per the order of the Commissioner impugned herein dated 04.10.2017 has satisfied its liability by making payment of 1/3rd of the compensation. Therefore, the insurance company has admitted its liability to such an extent. However, the Commissioner has not assigned any valid reason for apportioning the liability on the respondent Nos.1 to 3 equally dehorse accepting the valid and effective insurance policy in force as on the relevant date. The Commissioner ought to have denied or fastened the liability in full on the Insurance Company. The faint attempt made by the learned counsel Sri. G.N. Raichur appearing for the Insurance Company that Indian Motor Vehicle Tariff (IMT) 39A is applicable deserves to be rejected in view of (IMT) - 41 which is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. We quote the same for ready reference. " IMT.39A. Legal Liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of the carriage of more than six employees (Excluding the Driver) in goods carrying vehicles. We quote the same for ready reference. " IMT.39A. Legal Liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of the carriage of more than six employees (Excluding the Driver) in goods carrying vehicles. In consideration of the payment of an additional premium it is hereby understood and agreed that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein the company shall indemnify the insured against his legal liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and subsequent amendments to that Act prior to the date of this endorsement in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (other than the paid driver) exceeding six in number whilst being carried in the Motor vehicle and will in addition be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred with its written consent. Provided always that :- 1. the Company shall not be liable by virtue of this Endorsement to indemnify the insured in respect of any liability in cases where the insured holds or subsequently effects with any insurance company or group of Underwriters a Policy of Insurance in respect of liability as herein defined for his general employees and where the Insured has not obtained special permission from the registration authorities for carriage of more than six such employees. 2. the insured shall take reasonable precautions to prevent accidents and shall comply with all statutory obligations. 3. the insured shall keep a record of the name of each person employed in connection with the loading and unloading of the vehicles and the amount of wages salary and other earnings paid to such employees and shall at all times allow the Insurer to inspect such record. 4. in the event of the Policy being cancelled at the request of the insured no refund of the premium paid in respect of this endorsement will be allowed. Subject otherwise to the terms exceptions, conditions and limitations of this policy." IMT.41 Motor Trade Policy Class 'F' Road Risk only It is hereby declared and agreed that notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary that in respect of any new vehicle and/or chassis bearing a Trade Certificate Number specified in the Schedule of the policy, the Geographical Area for the purpose of this Policy shall be as defined as hereunder and not as stated in the Schedule hereto. Geographical Area Under Section II (i) ---INDIA Under all other Sections Within a radius of ..* Kilometers from the insured's address as stated in the Schedule hereto. Subject otherwise to the terms conditions limitations and exceptions of this policy. * to insert 80' or 120' as opted for by insured and premium paid accordingly." On the basis of IMT 41, we have no hesitation to hold that the entire liability has to be fastened on the Insurance Company in the wake of valid insurance policy in force covering the risk of the driver of the Motor Vehicle involved in the accident. 19. The Commissioner has taken into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and the Commissioner ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. 20. The compensation has to be calculated as per subsection( 1) of Section 4 of the Act. For calculating such compensation, the monthly wages of the deceased requires to be taken into consideration. Sub-section (1B) of Section 4 of the Act provides that the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for the purpose of sub-section (1), such monthly wages in relation to an employee as it may consider necessary. The Central Government by exercising its powers under sub-section (1B) of Section 4 of the Act, vide SO 1258(E) dated 31st May 2010 has published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii) dated 31st May 2010 specifying the amount of monthly wages as Rs.8,000/- with effect from 31.05.2010. The said SO has been superseded by SO No.71(E) dated 3rd January 2020 and monthly wage with effect from 3rd January 2020 is Rs.15,000/-. 21. In the present case, the accident has taken place on 27.06.2014. As on that date, SO No.1258(E) dated 31st May 2010 was in force. Therefore, the monthly wages fixed at Rs.8,000/- by the Commissioner is in conformity with the law holding the field on the relevant date. 22. The Commissioner has taken into consideration the age of the deceased as 55 years based on postmortem report Exs.P-3 and Ex.P-4 inquest mahazar. In Exs.P-3 and P-4 the age of the deceased is mentioned as 55 years. The original Driving License of the deceased is at Ex.P-7. 22. The Commissioner has taken into consideration the age of the deceased as 55 years based on postmortem report Exs.P-3 and Ex.P-4 inquest mahazar. In Exs.P-3 and P-4 the age of the deceased is mentioned as 55 years. The original Driving License of the deceased is at Ex.P-7. The date of birth mentioned in the DL is 01.07.1957. For considering the age, Ex.P-7-driving license is more authentic than the postmortem report and inquest mahazar. The age of the deceased has to be calculated as per SCHEDULE IV of the Act wherein it states as "completed years of age on the last birthday of the employee immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fell due." The date of birth of the deceased is 01.07.1957 and the date of accident is 27.06.2014. Therefore, the last birthday of the deceased has to be taken into consideration for ascertaining the age. The last birthday of the deceased prior to the accident is 01.07.2013 as on that day, the age of the deceased was 56 years. The factor for a person aged 56 years is 131.95. In view of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act where death results from the injury, an amount equal to 50% of the monthly wages of the deceased multiplied by relevant factor has to be taken into consideration for calculating the compensation. The monthly wages of the deceased is Rs.8,000/- and by deducting 50% of the wages, it comes to Rs.4,000/- per month and by applying relevant factor of 131.95, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.5,27,800/- and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.5,32,800/- with interest at 12% p.a. instead of Rs.5,47,240/- awarded by the Commissioner. 23. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. ORDER i) MFA No.100264/2018 is dismissed. ii) MFA No.104349/2017 and 100224/2018 are allowed. The judgment and award dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned Principal/I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharwad and the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Dharwad, in ECA No.1/2015 is modified. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.5,32,800/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 27.07.2014 till realization instead of Rs.5,47,240/- awarded by the Commissioner. Respondent No.3 alone shall satisfy the compensation awarded. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.5,32,800/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 27.07.2014 till realization instead of Rs.5,47,240/- awarded by the Commissioner. Respondent No.3 alone shall satisfy the compensation awarded. iii) On deposit of the compensation of Rs.5,32,800/-, the apportionment and disbursement of the same shall be made in terms of the order of the Commissioner. iv) The amount deposited by respondent Nos.1 and 2 before this Court, if any, shall be refunded. v) Registry is directed to draw the modified award accordingly.