JUDGMENT

1. These two appeals are filed challenging the judgment and award dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Haveri, (for short 'the Commissioner) in W.C.A.Nos.25/2010 and 26/2010 questioning the maintainability, liability and quantum.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants before the Commissioner is that deceased Shamiulla, on 26.05.2009 when the husband of the Tahaseentaj (claimant/respondent No.1) was travelling in a lorry bearing registration No.KA-05/B-7009 as a second driver along with his son Irfan and the said vehicle was driven by his another son Majju @ Majjumeerpasha and the said vehicle met with an accident as a result of which Shamiulla and Irfan both sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Hence, wife of Shamiulla, son and daughter of Shamiulla filed two claim petitions before the Commissioner seeking for compensation for the death of Shamiulla and Irfan.

3. In support of their claim, the wife of Shamiulla got examined herself as PW-1 and also got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. On the other hand, the Administrative Officer of Insurance Company is examined as RW-1 and got marked documents Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 and the owner of the vehicle was placed exparte. The Commissioner considering both oral and documentary evidence allowed the claim petitions awarding compensation of Rs.3,26,140/- in WCA No.25/2010 and Rs.3,99,945/- in WCA No.26/2010 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. after 30 days of the accident. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeals.

4. In M.F.A.No.23205/2011 which is in respect of death of Shamiulla, the Insurance Company has vehemently contended that the Commissioner has blindly held that Shamiulla was the second driver in the vehicle when the claimants had failed to produce any documents to show the relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and respondent No.4 and also failed to produce the driving licence of the deceased which itself goes to show that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the accident. It is also contended that the driving licence produced by the claimants was not valid as on the date of the accident. Hence, the Commissioner would have held that as per the conditions of the policy issued, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. In the appeal memorandum, substantial questions of law are raised contending that the Commissioner was not justified in holding that the policy issued by the Insurance Company covered the second driver. In the absence of any premium, question of fastening the liability on the Insurance Company does not arise. It is also contended that the Commissioner was not justified in awarding interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and that no material is produced to show that there exists relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle.

5. In M.F.A.No.23206/2011 in respect of the death of Irfan, the Insurance Company has urged similar grounds as urged in M.F.A.No.23205/2011. Apart from that contended that only on the version of claimant No.1, held that deceased was working as a cleaner in the lorry as on the date of the accident though no document was produced to show that he was working as a cleaner and the driver of the lorry is not examined in the case to prove the case of the claimants. Hence, it clearly shows that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the lorry with his father. It is also contended that the Commissioner was not justified in awarding compensation in respect of a minor boy aged 15 years working as a cleaner.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company reiterating the grounds urged in both the appeals, relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5/2013 disposed of on 03.01.2013 wherein the Apex Court ordered to pay and recover the amount from the owner following the principles