JUDGMENT :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

This appeal is directed against the impugned award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour (FAC), Kurnool in W.C. Case No.07 of 2004 dated 10.02.2009.

2. The appellant herein was the respondent No.2. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the appeal were the applicants, respondent No.4 was the respondent No.1/owner before the learned Commissioner. For the sake of the convenience the parties will be referred as were arrayed before the learned Commissioner.

3. The case of the Appellant in brief is that the deceased late B. Venkatesh was working as driver of the Tipper under the respondent No.1, who is the owner of the vehicle. On 07.09.2003, while the deceased was driving the tipper bearing No. AP 04T7047 loaded with gravel coming from quarry at Chetnepalli Village, when the tipper crossed Mantralayam Petrol Bunk at about 4.00 am, he met with an accident due to loss of control over the vehicle, resulting which, he sustained grievous injuries. Then he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, where he succumbed to injuries at about 08.50 am. The deceased was aged about 25 years. He used to get Rs.2,500/- per month as wages apart from daily batta of Rs.50/- per day. The applicants, who are the wife and children of the deceased sought compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased since the accident occurred out of and in the course of employment. The tipper is owned by the respondent No.1 and it is insured with the respondent No.2. Hence, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of accident.

4. Against the said claim, though the Opposite Party No.1/owner entered his appearance through his Advocate, but did not choose to file Counter or lead any evidence. The respondent No.2/Insurance company filed Counter denying the averments made in the application.

5. During the course of enquiry, the respondent No.1 herein, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined as PW.1 who filed her chief examination affidavit reiterating the contents of the petition. It was elicited in the cross examination that she is not an eye witness to the accident and she does not know how it occurred. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed a copy of the policy vide Ex.B.1 and reported no oral evidence.

6. Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner fastened the liability on both the respondents jointly and severally by awarding compensation of Rs.3,83,892/- along with the interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident i.e., 07.09.2003 and ordered to deposit the amount within a period of 30 days.

7. Having been aggrieved by the impugned Order, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company preferred the present appeal on couple of points :

(i) Though the applicants stated that the deceased used to get Rs.2,500/- per month as wages, the learned Commissioner erroneously considered the minimum wages as per G.O.Ms.No.30, L.E.T.& F (Lab-II), dated 27.07.2000 i.e., at the rate of Rs.3,595/- per month; and

(ii) Whether the learned Commissioner in violation of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court awarded interest at 12% p.a., from the date of accident?

8. Heard. Perused the material on record.

9. Having heard the submissions of both sides and on perusal of the record, substantial questions of law that would arise for determination in this appeal are :

(i) Whether the learned Commissioner is justifiable in considering the minimum wages as against the actual wages which th