Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.—This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 30(1) (a) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, being aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2017 passed by the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner -Workmen Compensation, Gaya, (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) in CWC Case No. 06 of 2015 ‘Shamima Khatoon & Ors. vs. The IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another,’ by which the compensation of Rs. 12,80,890/- with 6 % per annum from 23.06.2013 (after one month of the date of incident) has been awarded in favour of applicants against the appellant/ Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has been directed to deposit the said amount within one month of the Order and in case the said amount of compensation if not deposited within the said period interest @ 9 % per annum shall be payable from the date of incident.

2. The case in brief is that late Nasir Ahmad, the husband of the applicant no.1, was employed as driver of respondent no. 9/ O.P. No. 2, Gopal Prasad for his Truck No. JH-10AB-8935 and during his employment he was going to Kolkata with that truck on 22.05.2013 and as he reached near Bailkapi Mod in District- Hajaribag, he was checking the tyre of his truck standing in the side of the road then another vehicle dashed him due to which Nasir Ahmad sustained grievous injury and died on the spot. The post-mortem was conducted at Hajaribag and with respect to said accident Garehar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2013, was registered. It has been claimed that the age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of his death and he was getting Rs. 12,000/- as his wages and Rs. 150/- per day for his diet allowance. The said vehicle was insured with appellant/ O.P. No. 1 on the date of incident from whom the applicants, who are legal representative of the deceased being wife and minor children of deceased dependent upon the income of deceased are entitled for compensation.

3. On notice, O.P. No. 2, the owner of the vehicle appeared and filed his written statement and accepted the claim of the applicant, however, despite the notice served to the insurance company, no one appeared and accordingly ex-parte hearing against Insurance Company was proceeded in this case.

4. O.P. No. 2, the vehicle owner, in his written statement admitted that the deceased was employed as driver of his truck on the date of incident who died in accident. He has accepted deceased monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 150/- for daily diet allowance. It is further stated that the vehicle had a valid permit no. NP/BR/2/072012/26187 which was valid for the year 2012-2017, the driver having driving licence bearing number-245/F/95 was valid on the date of accident. It is further stated that the deceased was skillful and diligent driver and his vehicle was insured with appellant/IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company and he had given information of the death of his employee to the insurance company having no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As such the liability of payment of compensation is on the insurance company.

5. The owner or the Insurance Company have not contested the claim petition and have not cross-examined the applicant and her witness. The employer has admitted the claim petition and there was no contest. In view of the notification issued under Section 20 of the Workmen Compensation Act, Deputy Labour Commissioner is Commissioner for uncontested cases under Workmen Compensation Act and as such he has jurisdiction to pass an order in uncontested cases.

6. During hearing, the applicant and another witness adduced their evidence in which they have supported the claim. In support of her claim, the applicant has submitted copy of FIR being Garehar P.S. Case No. 20/2013, copy of charge-sheet, copy of post-mortem report, owner-book of vehicle, insurance policy, road permit, and driving licence of driver.

7. On the basis of the documents filed by applicants, statement of witnesses and stat