JUDGMENT :

1. These two appeals arise out of the award dated 04.05.2017, passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employee’s Compensation Act, awarding compensation to Smt. Veena Devi on account of death of her husband. FAO No.62 of 2018 has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle, whereas FAO No.35 of 2021 has been filed by the insurer of the vehicle. Being inter-connected, these appeals are taken up together for decision.

FAO No.35 of 2021

2. Facts:-

2(i). Smt. Veena Devi (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.1) filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act. She pleaded that she is widow of deceased Ishwar Singh. Her husband was employed as a driver by Ms. Sumitra (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.2). Ishwar Singh was driving Vehicle No.HP-03C-1907 on 25.03.2010, when it met with an accident causing his death. The vehicle was owned by respondent No.2. Ishwar Singh died during the course of his employment. He was 59 years of age at the time of accident. He was getting a salary of Rs.8000/- per month. In all, a compensation of Rs.15 Lakhs alongwith interest was claimed.

2(ii). Ms. Sumitra (respondent No.2) opposed the claim petition. Her stand was that Ishwar Singh was not driving her vehicle in the capacity of driver. He was her husband and was driving the vehicle as her husband on 25.03.2010. She also pleaded that there was no relationship of employer and employee between her and the deceased. Alternatively, her case was that the vehicle in question was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the appellant). There was no breach of insurance policy, therefore, if at all the compensation is to be paid to the claimant/respondent No.1, liability has to be fastened upon the appellant.

2(iii). The Insurance Company (appellant) in its reply to the claim petition admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with it, but it denied that the deceased was engaged as driver by respondent No.2 and died during the course of such employment.

3. After considering the respective pleadings, evidence and contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the claimant/respondent No.1 was legally wedded wife of Ishwar Singh. Ishwar Singh was engaged as a driver by respondent No.2. He died on 25.03.2010 while driving the Car bearing No.HP-03C-1907. The vehicle was owned by respondent No.2. There was relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and respondent No.2. The vehicle was insured with the appellant.

The learned Commissioner determined the age of deceased Ishwar Singh at the time of accident as 63 years. His monthly income was assessed at Rs.6000/-. In accordance with the provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act, as it existed prior to the amendment dated 25.03.2010, his monthly income was taken at Rs.4000/-. As per the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, 50% of the monthly wages (Rs.2000/-) were multiplied with the corresponding relevant factor 106.52 keeping in view the age of the deceased at the time of accident. The payable compensation amount was worked out at Rs.2,13,040/-. The claimant was also held entitled to interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 25.04.2010 on this amount. The interest was accordingly calculated as Rs.2,06,648.8/-. The claimant, in all, was held entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,19,688.8/-. Liability to pay the compensation amount of Rs.2,13,040/- was fastened upon Ms. Sumitra (respondent No.2) and liability to pay the interest component of Rs.2,06,648.8/- was fastened upon the Insurance Company (present appellant).

4. Contentions:-

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that there was no relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.2 and deceased Ishwar Singh. Ishwar Singh was residing with respondent No.2 as her husband. He was driving the illfated vehicle on the date of accident in that capacity. Once there was n