JUDGMENT :

P. Sam Koshy, J.—The present is an appeal by the insurance company under section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (in Short, the Act) against the award dated 29.10.2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur, in case No. 238/WCA/COC-1-B/05 (F). vide the impugned award, the Commissioner in a death case has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,79,775 to be deposited within two months failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 10 percent per annum.

2. The brief facts of the case is that, the deceased Salik Ram was engaged as driver in a private car belonging to respondent No. 4. On 17.5.2005 when the said Salik Ram was discharging the duties of driver of the vehicle insured by the present appellant, met with an accident resulting in his death. The claimants are widow and children of the deceased.

3. The Commissioner, considering the evidence which have come on record, allowed the claim application and have ordered for the aforementioned amount to be paid by the insurance company which has insured the vehicle belonging to the respondent No. 4.

4. The contention of the appellant-insurance company while challenging the award is that, the insurance company could not have been saddled with the responsibility of payment of compensation for the reason that there is a clear breach of policy conditions on the basis of which the insurance company should have been exonerated of its liability. It is a case where the vehicle which was registered as a private car was being used for commercial purpose as is evident from the evidence which has been adduced by the insurance company before the Commissioner. It is also the contention of the insurance company that the award is bad in law to the extent that the Commissioner has not fastened any liability upon the employer whom the appellant had indemnified and unless there is liability casted upon the employer, the award passed against the insurance company would not be maintainable.

5. It is also argued that it is a case where the claim put forth by the owner-respondent No. 4 towards own damage claim made to the insurance company was rejected which was challenged before the District Consumer Forum where the claim of the owner was rejected which was further put to challenge before the State Consumer Forum where also the appeal was decided in favour of the insurance company and as against the respondent No. 4-owner.

6. It was next submitted that on the date of accident, the respondent No. 4 was using the vehicle for commercial purpose inasmuch as it was being plied for transportation of one Ajay Chatterjee on hire basis from Bilaspur to Champa. The respondent No. 4 has not examined himself before the Commissioner, but has led evidence only her husband which was otherwise not acceptable, and therefore, it has to be presumed that the respondent No. 4 has not proved her case in any manner. It was lastly contended that the insurance company under any circumstances cannot be held liable to pay interest on the amount awarded. In support of his contentions, he refers to two decisions of the Supreme Court in case of P.J. Narayan v. Union of India and Ors., I (2006) ACC 159 : VIII (2005) SLT 799 : 2006 (5) SCC 200 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshad bhai Amrut bhai Modhiya and Anr.,1(2008) ACC 149 (SC) : III (2006) SLT 665 : 2006 (5) SCC 192.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-claimants opposing the appeal submits that the deceased in the instant case was a driver and indisputably the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and therefore, under no circumstances the insurance company could be exonerated of its liability under the Workmen Compensation Act.

8. Having heard the Counsel appearing on either side and on perusal of records some of the undisputed facts are, the vehicle involved in the accident i.e. Tata Indica bearing registration No. CG-10-BC-9150; the deceased Salik Ram being the driver engaged