B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.10.2008 passed by the learned Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act at Aizawl in W.C. Case No. 8 of 2007. By this impugned judgment the Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,33,820 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of accident, i.e., from 12.5.2007 in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved by the award the insurance company of the offending vehicle has filed this appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

2. Heard the argument of Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the insurance company, and that of Mr. S.N. Meitei, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-claimant. Respondent No. 2 is the father of the deceased and also the owner of the offending vehicle and during the pendency of the appeal the said person died. Be that as it may, on an application filed by the appellant under Order 22, rule 4 (4) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, this court vide order dated 8.2.2010 passed in CM. Appln. No. 133 of 2009, it has been held that there was no necessity to add the legal heirs of respondent No. 2, since he did not contest the case before the Commissioner. The respondent No. 3 is New India Assurance Co. Ltd. This insurance company was impleaded in the claim application since the oil products were insured with this company and during the course of hearing the said insurance company was also struck off from the list of the opposite party by the Commissioner. Despite that as an abundant caution respondent No. 3 was impleaded in this appeal, but they have not appeared to contest the appeal.

3. During the course of hearing of this appeal, a suspicion had developed in the mind of the court regarding genuineness of the driving licence of the deceased and as such D.T.Os. of Kolasib and Aizawl Districts were summoned and their depositions were recorded as court witnesses, in exercise of powers conferred upon the appellate court under Order 41, rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. These court witnesses also produced driving licence of the deceased which shows manipulation of date of birth of the deceased in the photocopy of the driving licence produced by the claimant in the Tribunal and this aspect will be discussed in this judgment at a later stage.

4. Mr. S.N. Meitei, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, submitted that the appeal should be dismissed in limine inasmuch as the appellant has failed to formulate substantial questions of law, as required under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Whether formulation of substantial questions of law in an appeal filed by the insurance company (insurer) is mandatory or directory will be discussed later in this judgment. However, for efficacious disposal of this appeal the following substantial questions of law are framed by me:

(i) Whether the impugned judgment suffers from perversity on the issue of 'collusion' between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle?

(ii) Whether the impugned award of the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Aizawl regarding the impugned judgment suffers for not appreciating the insurer's plea that claimant's documents were not genuine?

(iii) Whether the impugned judgment suffers from perverse finding regarding employer-employee relationship of the deceased with the owner of the vehicle and also about his age and income?

(iv) Whether awarding of interest from the date of accident is also sustainable in law?

5. Before proceeding to discuss the legal issues it would be just and proper to give a summary of the facts, giving rise to filing of the claimants' application for compensation and the challenge of the award by the insurance company, which are as follows:

5.1. Respondent No. 1, namely, Kap-kima was the owner of the oil tanker/lorry under registration No. MZ 01-D 1004. The deceased Vanlalsanga was the son of owner of the vehicle and claimant is the mother of the deceased. In other wo