JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short “The Act”) against the impugned award in W.C.No.22 of 2006, dated 11.09.2008 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa (in short “The Commissioner”). 2. The appellant herein is the O.P. No.2, the respondent No.1 is the applicant and respondent No.2 is the O.P. No.1 respectively before the learned Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed before the Commissioner. During pendency of the appeal, the applicant died, due to which, respondents 3 and 4 being his wife and son were brought on record. 3. Case of the Applicant a. The case of applicant is that the applicant sustained injuries during the course of employment as driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-02-U-5418 while working under O.P. No.1. On 17.08.2005 at about 09.00PM, while he was proceeding in the lorry on Rayalacheruvu-Tadipatri road in between Vengampeta and Cheemalavagupalli village in a slow and careful manner by taking all traffic precautions, one lorry bearing No.KA-02-E-6599 was stationed on wrong side of the road without signal lights, and on observing it, the applicant applied brakes suddenly in order to avoid major accident, resulting which, the cabin of lorry got damaged and glass pieces pierced into the eyes of the applicant and caused bleeding injury below left eye and thereafter he was shifted to Government Hospital, Tadipatri and from there shifted to Government Hospital, Ananthapur for better treatment, later he was admitted in Government General Hospital, Kurnool and thereafter he was shifted to Dr.Sarojinidevi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, where he underwent a surgery. b. In spite of the said treatment, applicant lost his vision to the left eye completely and is unable to drive vehicle. A case was registered by Muchumarri Police as Crime No.47 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 338 IPC. He used to get Rs.4,000/- per month apart from Rs.100/- per day as batta. The vehicle was insured with O.P. No.2 covering the risk of driver and the policy was in force at the time of accident. Accordingly, he claimed Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident. Version of the Opposite Parties 4. He used to get Rs.4,000/- per month apart from Rs.100/- per day as batta. The vehicle was insured with O.P. No.2 covering the risk of driver and the policy was in force at the time of accident. Accordingly, he claimed Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident. Version of the Opposite Parties 4. While the O.P. No.1 was set ex parte, the O.P. No.2 being the insurer of the offending lorry filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim, and putting the applicant in strict proof of the same. The O.P. No.2 denied the injuries sustained in the accident, the manner in which the accident occurred and holding of valid driving of the licence of the applicant. Enquiry before the Learned Commissioner 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Commissioner framed the following issues: i. Whether the insured was a workman as per the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with accident arising out of and in course of his employment resulting into injuries? ii. What was the age of the injured at the time of the accident? iii. What were the wages paid to the injured at the time of accident? iv. What is the quantum of compensation payable to the injured person? v. Who are liable to pay the compensation to the injured person? 6. During the course of enquiry, the applicant was examined as AW.1. Dr. G. S. Ramesh Kumar was examined as AW.2 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked and on behalf of insurance company, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. 7. After hearing both learned counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs.4,54,944/- as compensation to the applicant payable by the Opposite Parties jointly and severally within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. However, if they failed to pay the amount, they were liable to pay the same with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realization 8. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the O.P. No.2 preferred the present appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law; 1. Whether the Commissioner is having jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition particularly when the employer/employee relationship was not established? 2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the O.P. No.2 preferred the present appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law; 1. Whether the Commissioner is having jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition particularly when the employer/employee relationship was not established? 2. Whether the Commissioner is empowered to grant interest from the date of the accident instead of the date of claim petition at 12% p.a.? 3. Whether the alleged accident as narrated by the claimant amounts to a motor accident to claim compensation against the insurance company? 9. Heard both the counsel. Perused the material on record. Determination by the Court 10. It is the case of the applicant that he worked as driver of O.P. No.1’s lorry. Having received the notice O.P. No.1 did not choose to contest before learned Commissioner. The injured as AW.1 categorically deposed before the learned Commissioner in replica to the averments made in the petition in his chief examination with all minute details of the accident. In the cross-examination, AW.1 stated that the police filed charge sheet against him. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of AW.1 except that the police filed charge sheet against him. 11. It is apt to say that the negligence on the part of the injured is not a ground to discard the case of compensation, unless it is falling under Sec.3 (1) (a) or Sec. 3(1) (b). The evidence of AW.1 coupled with Ex.A1-Certified copy of FIR would show that the matter is reported to Muchumarri police station, who registered a case in Crime No.47 of 2005 and after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the injured, vide Ex.A2. The wound certificate i.e., Ex.A3 would show that the injuries of the applicant which was issued by AW.2 – Dr.G. S. Ramesh Kumar, who treated the applicant also deposed supporting the case of the injured. 12. On behalf of O.P. No.2 RW.1 was examined and filed Ex.B1-insurance policy. In the cross-examination, RW.1 admitted that at the time of accident, the policy was in force. According to him, the owner has not paid the premium for the risk of driver. The evidence of RW.1 remained unproved. The insurance company did not choose to take steps to prove that the driver of the lorry was not having valid driving license as on the date of accident. 2. According to him, the owner has not paid the premium for the risk of driver. The evidence of RW.1 remained unproved. The insurance company did not choose to take steps to prove that the driver of the lorry was not having valid driving license as on the date of accident. 2. The evidence of AWs.1 and 2 is suffice to prove that the accident occurred during the course of employment i.e., while he was driving the vehicle. AW.2 admitted that as per the medical terminology total loss of one eye is equal to 30%, but because of loss to his left eye, he was not in a position to drive with one eye’s sight. It is of common knowledge that good eye sight is pivotal in driving. When the owner himself did not deny the relationship of employee and employer with the claimant, there is nothing on record to indicate that the injured failed to establish the said relationship. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kadapa Vs. Obili Venkata Dasu and others, C.M.A.No.350 of 2011, Dated 19.04.2011 the then Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that once an employer admits the factum of employment, it is not open to the insurer to raise doubts on the said fact. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Commissioner ought not to have granted interest from the date of accident. This question is no longer res integra in the light of the following judgments. In a case Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and others Vs National Insurance Company Limited and others, 2014 ACJ 467 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “In the light of the decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC) and Valsala K, 2000 ACJ 5 (SC), it is not open to contend that the payment of compensation would fall due only after the Commissioner’s Order or with reference to the date on which the claim application is made. The decisions in Mubasir Ahmed, 2007 ACJ 845 (SC) and Mohd. Nasir, 2009 ACJ 2742 (SC), insofar as they took a contrary view to the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K. do not express the correct view and do not make binding precedents. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The appellants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the accident”. 14. In Ajaya Kumar Das and another vs. Divisional Manager and Another, [2022] 1 S.C.R. 468, where the Commissioner awarded compensation along with interest of 12% per annum from the date of accident, the Hon’ble Apex Court had an occasion to reiterate the law at para 5 as follows; “The error on the part of the High Court has led a labourer and his spouse to travel all the way to this Court. Though the accident took place in 2000, the course of litigation would now end only with the present judgment. To set the record straight, the High Court has erred on merits as well. Section 4A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 stipulates that the Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay interest of 12% or at a higher rate, not exceeding the lending rates of any scheduled banks specified, if the employer does not pay the compensation within one month from the date it fell due. In Saberabibi Yakubhai Shaikh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 298 this Court held that interest shall be paid on the compensation awarded from the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim in view of the decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George, (2012) 12 SCC 540 where it was held that, compensation would fall due from the date of the accident. Further, in the recent decision in P. Meenaraj v. P.Adigurusamy & Anr., Civil Appeal No 209 of 2022, decided on 6 January 2022 – Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court reiterated that the applicant is entitled to interest from the date of accident while rejecting the submission that the award of interest should be after the expiry of 30 days from the date of accident. Thus, there was no legal basis for the High Court to delete the order of payment of interest.” 15. In the backdrop of legal position reported supra, the order impugned is on correct lines and it does not suffer from any infirmity. Thus, there was no legal basis for the High Court to delete the order of payment of interest.” 15. In the backdrop of legal position reported supra, the order impugned is on correct lines and it does not suffer from any infirmity. The accident in the present case happened while the applicant was driving the vehicle in a slow and careful manner by taking all precautions and at that time he hit the stationed lorry parked on wrong side of the road without signal lights, which was not visible to the him clearly and hence the glass pieces pierced into the eyes of applicant. Nothing has been placed on record before this Court to show that it is not a motor accident. 16. Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, both parties shall bear their own costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.