JUDGMENT : S.K. MISHRA, J. 1. As both the appeal arises out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of together by the common judgment. 2. In Appeal from Order No. 236 of 2011, the Insurance Company has appealed against the order passed by the Competent Authority (Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kumaon Region/Haldwani, District Nainital), in W.C.A. No. 62 of 2005, under the Workmens’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’ for brevity), whereby the Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 2,82,656/- within a period of one month from the date of passing of the award. 3. The order-sheet reveals that A.O. No. 236 of 2011, which has been preferred by the Insurance Company, has been admitted by this Court as per the order dated 01.07.2011, on the following substantial question of law: Whether the claimants/applicants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4, are covered within the definition of dependant as provided under Section 2(d) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923? 4. The Appeal from Order No. 210 of 2011 has been admitted as reflected in the order-sheet dated 15.06.2011, on the substantial question of law framed in the memo of appeal. The memo of appeal reflects that two substantial questions of law are to be decided there. The same reads as under: (i) Whether the awarded compensation of Rs. 2,82,656/- to the appellant/claimant in stead of Rs. 4,50,000/- as claimed by her, is proper? (ii) Whether the rate of interest granted by the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner is correct and whether under Section 4-A(3) of the Act, a higher interest rate will be applicable from the date of default? 5. The claimant namely, Naimuddin and three others, preferred the original application under the provisions of the Act, claiming that his son Akram was working as a cleaner on the vehicle of respondent No. 1, bearing Registration No. UHB-5398. On 28.07.2005, while discharging his duties because of accidental electrocution, Akram died. At the time of death, his age was 20 years, and he was getting a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month from respondent No. 1. Therefore, the claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- along with 12 per cent interest thereon. 6. On 28.07.2005, while discharging his duties because of accidental electrocution, Akram died. At the time of death, his age was 20 years, and he was getting a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month from respondent No. 1. Therefore, the claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- along with 12 per cent interest thereon. 6. The respondent No. 2, i.e. the Insurance Company in its written statement technically denied all the contentions made by the claimants, but did not deny the fact that the vehicle in question was insured with it. 7. The respondent No. 1, i.e. the employer, in his written statement admitted that the deceased was engaged in his vehicle and he died during such employment. The deceased was getting a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month towards the wages and Rs. 50/- per day towards daily expenses. Respondent No. 1 also submitted that the vehicle in question was insured validly with respondent No. 2 Insurance Company, and all the documents of the vehicle were valid. Hence, respondent No. 1 submitted that the respondent No. 2 is liable to pay the compensation. 8. On such pleadings, the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner addressed itself to decide the question whether the respondents are entitled to pay compensation to the claimants? Four witnesses, including Sri Naimuddin, father of the deceased, were examined on behalf of the claimants. The claimants supported their claim that the deceased was employed with respondent No. 1 as a cleaner in the vehicle having the aforesaid registration number. The deceased was 20 years old healthy young man, getting a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month as wages. It is further stated by the witness (father of the deceased) that his son used to give money to him, and from which day-to-day expenses of the family were met. He further stated that two of his daughters are still to be married, and after death of his son, his wife is remaining ill continuously, as such, he is facing hardship in meeting his domestic expenses. This witness further stated that he, his wife, and two daughters were dependent upon the income of the said deceased. A panchnama was prepared for his death. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that he had not witnessed the accident, and that his son was not married. This witness further stated that he, his wife, and two daughters were dependent upon the income of the said deceased. A panchnama was prepared for his death. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that he had not witnessed the accident, and that his son was not married. He further stated that the owner of the vehicle (respondent No. 1) did not pay any compensation to him after the death of his son, and denied the suggestion that respondent No. 1 had paid Rs. 60,000/- to him. 9. An eyewitness namely, Sri Naeem-ul-saan S/o Vazi-ul-saan, R/o Siroli kalan, Kicha, District Udham Singh Nagar was examined on behalf of the claimants. This witness stated that the accident took place because of accidental coming into contact with live electric wire, and electrocution. Nothing substantial has been brought out in the cross-examination of this witness. 10. In this case, the respondent No. 1 also examined himself and stated that he is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. UHB-5398. He also admitted that the deceased was employed as a cleaner in the said vehicle, and that there was an accident, and as a result of accidental electrocution, the deceased died. This witness further stated that he was paying a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the deceased plus Rs.50/- per day for daily expenses, and that the vehicle was having proper documents, including the valid insurance. This witness admitted that he does not have any document regarding the employment of the deceased, and that the deceased happens to be his cousin. 11. Taking into consideration all these material available on record, the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner came to the conclusion that the claimants have proved that the deceased died due to the accident, and that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000/- per month plus Rs. 50/- per day as daily expenses. The learned Deputy Labour Commissioner did not hold it appropriate to grant a compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Rather, he granted a compensation of Rs. 2,82,565/-, and directed that the said amount be paid to the claimants within a month, failing which it shall bear a penal interest of 12 per cent. 12. 50/- per day as daily expenses. The learned Deputy Labour Commissioner did not hold it appropriate to grant a compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Rather, he granted a compensation of Rs. 2,82,565/-, and directed that the said amount be paid to the claimants within a month, failing which it shall bear a penal interest of 12 per cent. 12. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the claimants have not proved that there was employee-employer relationship between the deceased and respondent No. 1, and that there was a relationship between the respondent No. 1 and the deceased as both were cousins. It is submitted that the claim petition should be rejected on this ground alone. The learned counsel would further submit that the deceased was 17 years 04 months old at the time of accident, and he could not have been engaged as a cleaner in the vehicle in question. The engagement of the deceased is violative of the principles of Prohibition of Child Labour Act, 1986, which prohibits the employment of adolescents in the age group of 14 to 18 years in hazardous occupations. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would argue that the compensation paid is less in this case, and compensation should have been calculated taking into consideration the income of the deceased to be Rs. 4,000/- per month, and that the penal interest should have been granted from the date of default on the part of the employer to pay compensation. 14. However, as stated earlier, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is limited to the question - whether the claimant Nos. 1 to 4 are dependent as per the definition provided under Section 2(d) of the Act? It is appropriate to take note of the exact definition provided there. Section 2(d) reads as under: 2(d) “dependent” means any of the following relatives of a deceased [employee], namely: (i) a widow, a minor [legitimate or adopted] son, an unmarried [legitimate or adopted] daughter, or a widowed mother. (ii) if wholly dependent on the earnings of the [employee] at the time of his death, a son or a daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm. (iii) if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the [employee] at the time of his death: (a) a widower. (b) a parent other than a widowed mother. (iii) if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the [employee] at the time of his death: (a) a widower. (b) a parent other than a widowed mother. (c) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegitimate daughter or a daughter [legitimate or illegitimate or adopted] if married and a minor or if widowed and a minor. (d) a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor. (e) a widowed daughter-in-law. (f) a minor child of a pre-deceased son. (g) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive. (h) a paternal grandparent if no parent of the [employee] is alive. Explanation - For the purpose of sub-clause (ii) and items (f) and (g) of sub-clause (iii), references to a son, daughter or child include an adopted son, daughter or child respectively. 15. It is not disputed that both the parents, i.e. the claimant Nos. 1 and 2, have stated that they were dependent upon the earnings of the employee, i.e. the deceased, and there is no material on record except the suggestion given by the respondent No. 2 that they were not dependent upon the income of the deceased. It is also borne out from the record that neither the Insurance Company has led any evidence to the effect that the claimants are not dependent upon the income of the deceased, nor Sri Naimuddin (respondent No. 1) who examined himself on behalf of the claimants, as a witness, before the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner, has stated that the claimants were not dependent upon the earnings of the employee. Moreover, a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor, are also taken to be dependent within the expression of Section 2(d) of the Act. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the claimants are dependent on the deceased. 16. Similar question arose before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Ramji and Another vs. Lalit Kumar Bardiya and Others, 1994 SCC Online M.P. 3. 17. The facts in the aforesaid case was that the driver of a tractor, met with an accident in the course and out of employment as a result of which he was crushed under the tractor and died. The parents of the deceased employee claimed compensation. 17. The facts in the aforesaid case was that the driver of a tractor, met with an accident in the course and out of employment as a result of which he was crushed under the tractor and died. The parents of the deceased employee claimed compensation. The Commissioner for the Workmen Compensation rejected the claim holding, inter-alia, that the parent cannot be claimed to be the dependent as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(b) of the Act. An appeal was filed under Section 23 of the Act, and the appeal was allowed holding as under: The deceased lived jointly with his parents and other members of the family including his brothers and was being supported by the members of the family with the income, for some extent, from agricultural lands and their individual earnings as labourers on daily wages. In the present state of evidence whether the parents can be held to the dependents of the deceased? In joint families in India, consisting of father and sons if all the claimants are earning members, normally the income and expenses are shared. In such situations, each earning member provides support and is also dependent on the other. In Indian joint families, there is thus sharing of income and responsibilities. Inter-dependence and mutual cooperation alone makes living in joint families possible. The Court further held that: The word ‘Dependent’ cannot be given an extracted meaning to include within the said expression only such parents who have actually received benefit fully or partly from the earnings of the deceased and to exclude such parents who in natural and normal course would have received such benefit from the earnings of the deceased, but for some act or omission on cause attributable to the employer are deprived of such benefits from the deceased workmen. 18. In that view of the matter, as far as Appeal from Order No. 236 of 2011 is concerned, this Court does not find any merit in the same. 19. In fact, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would argue that the deceased was underage at the time of his death, therefore, no compensation can be granted for the death of a minor, and that the case appears to be false one because of the relationship between the respondent No. 1 and the deceased. 19. In fact, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would argue that the deceased was underage at the time of his death, therefore, no compensation can be granted for the death of a minor, and that the case appears to be false one because of the relationship between the respondent No. 1 and the deceased. However, no material has been raised before the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner as well as before his Court regarding the age of the deceased at the time of his death. No plea has been taken, specifically, by the Insurance Company or by the respondent No. 1, that the deceased was a minor at the time of the accident, and hence, he would not have been legally engaged to work as a cleaner in the vehicle in question. Hence, this Court finds that such contention raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is of no avail and cannot be given much weightage to. 20. As far as the relationship between these parties is concerned, it is true that the respondent No. 1 has admitted that the deceased was his cousin. However, the Insurance Company has not raised a plea in its written statement that the deceased was a cousin of respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the case is a false case. This is only an after thought when the respondent No. 1 admitted that there exists a relationship between him and the deceased. Otherwise also, there is no prohibition for employing a relation in a private employment by the owner of a vehicle. Therefore, this aspect is also not considered to be of any avail to the Insurance Company to set aside the award passed by the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner. 21. As regard the claim of the claimants regarding enhancement of compensation to Rs. 4,50,000/- it is admitted by the respondent No. 1 that the deceased was being paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month, excluding the daily expenses, as wages. There being no other document as the employer himself has stated that the deceased was being paid Rs. 2,000/- per month as wages. The learned Deputy Labour Commissioner was correct in holding that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000/- per month, and as such, rightly assessed the amount of compensation. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to come to a different conclusion. 2,000/- per month as wages. The learned Deputy Labour Commissioner was correct in holding that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000/- per month, and as such, rightly assessed the amount of compensation. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to come to a different conclusion. The substantial question framed earlier, therefore, is answered against the appellant in Appeal from Order No. 210 of 2011. 22. As far as grant of interest on compensation is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ved Prakash Garg vs. Premi Devi and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 1 , held that compensation and interest would remain part and parcel of the legal liability of insured to be discharged under the Act. Hence, it cannot be stated that insurer will not pay interest, as interest on principal amount gets automatically foisted upon them once compensation is not paid within a month from the date it fell due. 23. In this case, the impugned order was pronounced on 20.05.2011, with a direction to give compensation to the claimants within a month. However, from the order-sheet it is apparent that the appeal was preferred on 28.06.2011, i.e. after a month, but the amount of compensation has been deposited before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/ Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haldwani on 09.06.2011, as is evident from Page 4 of the memo of appeal. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to receive any interest. 24. In that view of the matter, both the Appeals fails, and are dismissed. The order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haldwani is, hereby, confirmed.