JUDGMENT : CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING), J. 1. Heard Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel appearing for the claimant- appellants and also heard Mr. Alik Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2-insurance company. 2. The present appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is directed against the award dated 28.04.2021 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (E.C.) No. 10 of 2013 whereby the learned Commissioner rejected the claim petition filed by the appellants herein. 3. The case of the appellants, in a nutshell, is that on 25.02.2012 at the dead hours of night while the deceased Sabyasachi Deb was driving the vehicle bearing No. TR-01-Z-0304 and reached near Fatikcherra at about 4.30 a.m., the vehicle dashed a tree in a turning due to brake failure resulting which said Sabyasachi Deb succumbed to his injuries at the spot. It was alleged that deceased aged about 31 years during his lifetime was an employee under his mother would earn wages of Rs.6,000/- per month and beside this, he would also earn Rs.8,000/- from other business and in total his income was alleged to be Rs.14,000/-. It was also alleged that the deceased died out of an accident which arose out of and in course of his employment. Accordingly, the claimants filed application under Sections 4, 4(A), 10 and 22 of the Employees' Compensation Act praying for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No. 1 (owner of the vehicle) contested the claim petition by filing written objection contending that deceased was her engaged driver having valid driving license. She also admitted that the deceased died out of the said accident and she used to give Rs.6,000/- per month to him as wages and the said vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited at the time of accident. On the other hand, the insurance company through their written objection denied the accident as well as death of the victim in course of his employment and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings and after hearing the parties, the learned Commissioner framed issues and on appreciating the evidence on record rejected the claim of the appellants herein (claimants) by the impugned award dated 28.04.2021. 5. On the basis of the pleadings and after hearing the parties, the learned Commissioner framed issues and on appreciating the evidence on record rejected the claim of the appellants herein (claimants) by the impugned award dated 28.04.2021. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 28.04.2021 the claimants have preferred the instant appeal. 6. Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants contends that the learned Commissioner without appreciating the facts of the case as well as documentary evidence produced on record including evidence of the claimant erred in deciding the issues involved and as such, the award is liable to be set aside. He also contends that the learned Commissioner also did not consider the deceased son to be treated as an employee under his mother (owner of the vehicle) for extending benefit under the Employees' Compensation Act. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned award dated 28.04.2021 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (E.C.) No. 10 of 2013 by awarding just compensation to the claimants. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Alik Das, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company has strongly opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants contending that the learned Commissioner did not commit any error while passing the award. The learned Commissioner passed the award after appreciating the evidence on record. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the claimant-appellants. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that nil award passed by the learned Commissioner needs to be interfered with. Accordingly, I now proceed to reassess the amount of compensation afresh. As far as the present case is concerned, the claimant-wife in her examination-in-chief averred that her husband, i.e. the deceased used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as wages from his employment and at the time of accident, the deceased was 34 years old. The respondent-owner, i.e. mother of the deceased in her written objection also stated that her son was being paid a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month and he died in course of his employment. Accordingly, from the aforesaid pleadings of the claimant- wife as well as owner, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to take the wages of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Accordingly, from the aforesaid pleadings of the claimant- wife as well as owner, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to take the wages of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. 50% of that wages comes out to Rs.3,000/- per month and the same has to be multiplied by the relevant factor according to Section 4(1)(a) of the Employees' Compensation Act. The relevant factor in the case of a 34 year old person is 199.40 according to Schedule IV of the Act and, therefore, the compensation works out to Rs.5,98,200/-. In additional thereto, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the total amount of compensation is re-assessed at Rs. (5,98,200 + 5,000) = Rs. 6,03,200/-. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The award dated 28.04.2021 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (E.C.) No. 10 of 2013 is set aside and the amount of compensation is re-assessed at Rs.6,03,200/-. On this amount, the claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Court below till payment/deposit of the amount. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation along with interest in the Registry of this Court within four months from today. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and disposed of to the extent as indicated above. 11. Send down the lower court records forthwith. 12. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.