JUDGMENT : K. MANMADHA RAO, J. 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for brevity “the Act”) aggrieved by the order dated 11.05.2017 passed in W.C.No. 20 of 2013 by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa (for short “the Commissioner”). 2. The Appellant herein is the Respondent No. 2/ Opposite Party No. 2 and the respondents No. 1 to 4 herein are the applicants/claimants and the respondent No. 5 herein is the Opposite Party No. 1 in W.C No. 20 of 2013. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Commissioner. 3. The applicants have filed the impugned W.C.No. 20 of 2013 before the Commissioner claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the Opposite Party No. 1 is the registered owner of the auto bearing No. AP04 TU-1735 and the deceased Manchala Thirupathaiah was working as Auto driver under the Opposite Party No. 1 for the last two years prior to the accident and attending the said auto and that he was paid Rs.4,000/- per month besides batta of Rs.200/- per day. On the instructions of OP No. 1, on 21.12.2012 evening, while the deceased attended duty in between Vemaluru and Badvel for hire, at about 11,00 p.m., when the auto reached near Vemaluru cross road at a turning point near a tamarind tree the deceased lost control over the vehicle. As a result of which, the auto turned turtle, the deceased sustained serious fatal injuries. Immediately he shifted to RIMS hospital, Kadapa for treatment and on the next day i.e., on 22.12.2012 at 1.30 p.m. he succumbed to the injuries. On the complaint of brother of the deceased, a case in Cr.No. 66 of 2012 was registered by Atlur Police. Thus, the deceased died during the course of employment under OP No. 1. The deceased is having valid and effective driving licence to drove the auto. The applicants are depending upon the earnings of the deceased. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the claimants lost their source of income and love and affection. Therefore, both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation to the applicants. 5. The deceased is having valid and effective driving licence to drove the auto. The applicants are depending upon the earnings of the deceased. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the claimants lost their source of income and love and affection. Therefore, both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation to the applicants. 5. The Opposite Party No. 2 filed counter before the Commissioner and denied all the allegations made in the petition including the age and avocation of the deceased, the manner of accident and the income of the deceased. It is further stated that the applicants have to prove that the deceased was working under the employment of OP No. 1 and that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. Further, the claimants are required to prove that the deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment at RIMS, Kadapa, by way of documentary proof such as FIR, Inquest, P.M. Certificate, Charge sheet or final report. The applicants have not informed about the accident and the death of the deceased. There is no relationship of employee and employer in between the deceased and OP No. 1. The age and income of the deceased are also denied the finally sought for dismissal of claim against OP No. 2. 6. During course of trial, on behalf of the applicants, AW.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked. On behalf of the Opposite parties, RW.1 and RW.2 were examined and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2. 7. The learned Commissioner, after hearing on both sides passed an order holding that both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to deposit an amount of Rs.5,39,337/- compensation besides Stamp duty of Rs.1,079/-with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till its realization by means of D.D drawn in favour of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Joint Commissioner for Labour, Kurnool drawn on State Bank of India, Kurnool, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and also held that if they have failed to deposit the awarded amount within the stipulated time, they have to pay penalty under Section 4(A) 3(b) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923. 8. Heard Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. Despite service of notice on the respondents, none represented on behalf of them. 9. 8. Heard Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. Despite service of notice on the respondents, none represented on behalf of them. 9. During hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the Commissioner is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. She submits that the commissioner grossly erred to in holding that the appellant herein is liable for the compensation along with the other Opposite Party for the alleged accident. She further submits that the Commissioner failed to see that the deceased did not have any valid licence at the time of accident and also failed to see that the concerned RTO clearly deposed that the driving licence of the deceased is not traceable as per their records. Learned counsel requests this Court to consider the said facts and allow the appeal by relying on the substantial question of law, which reads as: (1) whether the accident had arisen out of and in the course of employment or not? (2) whether the deceased was paid Rs.4,000/- per month as a driver on auto rickshaw bearing No. AP-04-TU-1735? (3) whether the Commissioner is right in coming to conclusion that the deceased is working as driver under OP No. 1 when there is no evidence to prove employer-employee relationship? (4) whether the Commissioner has correctly calculated the minimum rates of wages as per G.O.Ms.No. 83 L.E.T & F (Lab-II) department, dated 22.11.2006 with effect from 4.12.2006? (5) Whether the Commissioner is right in awarding Rs.5,39,337/- by taking the minimum, wage at Rs.5,614/- as per the above said G.O.? 10. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the Commissioner failed to take the minimum wages i.e. Rs.5,614/- per month though the claimants claimed the minimum wages of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. 11. As seen from the evidence of AW.1, who is wife of the deceased stated that her husband is working as Auto driver. The OP No. 1 is the registered owner of the said Auto bearing No. AP04 TU 1735. While her husband was discharging his legitimate duties, lost control due to which the auto was turned turtle and her husband sustained serious fatal injuries and was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and while undergoing treatment succumbed to the injuries on 22.12.2012 at 1.30 p.m. Thus, her husband died during the course of his employment under OP No. 1. While her husband was discharging his legitimate duties, lost control due to which the auto was turned turtle and her husband sustained serious fatal injuries and was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and while undergoing treatment succumbed to the injuries on 22.12.2012 at 1.30 p.m. Thus, her husband died during the course of his employment under OP No. 1. She further stated that the auto was insured with OP No. 2 and that the policy was in force as on the date of accident. 12. As seen from the evidence of RW.1, who is Legal Officer in Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, i.e., OP No. 2, stated in his chief affidavit that he is second opposite party in the claim. He stated that the subject vehicle was insured with their company under passengers carrying three wheelers package policy valid from 15.5.2012 to 14.5.2013 and that the driver of the auto should possesses driving licence under the category of auto rickshaw transport as per terms and conditions of the policy. But the driver of the said auto did not possess any licence at the time of accident and that the driving licence filed by the applicants is a fake document. Though the OP No. 1 knowingly well that the driver of the auto was not having driving licence, he handed over the auto to the said driver who was not possessing valid and effective driving licence. Thus there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy by the OP No. 1. As such, OP No. 2 is not liable to indemnify the OP No. 1. There is no income proof filed by the applicants and there is no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the OP No. 1. 13. Insofar as wages of the deceased is concerned, in the claim petition, the claimants mentioned that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per annum besides batta of Rs.200/-per day. The said payment has not at all been disputed by OP No. 2. Therefore, the Commissioner has fixed the minimum wages as Rs.5,614/- vide G.O.Ms.No. 83 LET & F (L:Ab.II Dept.) dated 22.11.2006. In view of the same, it is observed that the Commissioner has rightly assessed and awarded compensation. 14. Insofar as rate of interest is concerned, the Commissioner has awarded 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realization. Therefore, the Commissioner has fixed the minimum wages as Rs.5,614/- vide G.O.Ms.No. 83 LET & F (L:Ab.II Dept.) dated 22.11.2006. In view of the same, it is observed that the Commissioner has rightly assessed and awarded compensation. 14. Insofar as rate of interest is concerned, the Commissioner has awarded 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realization. In the present case, the accident had taken place on21.12.2012 and the Commissioner had passed the order on 11.05.2017. The rate at which the interest is to be awarded would normally depend upon the bank rate prevailing at the relevant time. Since in the case of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. (2005) 6 SCC 236 Decided in the month of April 2005, the prevailing rate of interest on bank deposits was found and held to be 7.5% per annum, it would appropriate to award the same rate of interest. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court found no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner in awarding compensation amount, but with regard to rate of interest, this Court intends to modify the same. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of, while confirming the awarded compensation by the Commissioner. The interest rate is reduced from 12% p.a. to 7.5% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.