JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant appeal arises from the impugned order of the learned Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. ( for short the 'Commissioner’), whereby he allowed the application preferred thereat by the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 wherein they claimed grant of compensation vis-a-vis them under the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short the 'Act’).

2. The claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 herein are successors-in-interest of deceased Chaterpal, whose demise occurred in an ill-fated accident involving truck bearing No. HP-24-5291, whereon he stood at the relevant time engaged as a cleaner by respondents No.3 and 4. They had instituted a petition before the Commissioner staking a claim therein for assessment of compensation under the Act qua them. The learned Commissioner on standing seized with the relevant evidence, pronounced an award wherein he assessed compensation in a sum of Rs.6,71,389/- along with interest @ 12% per annum vis-a-vis the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 herein besides liability thereof stood fastened upon the insurance company. 141

3. The Insurance company-appellant herein standing aggrieved by the rendition of the learned Commissioner hence concerts to assail it by preferring an appeal therefrom before this Court.

4. The learned Commissioner had while concluding qua the deceased drawing wages in a sum quantified @ Rs.3000/- per month had depended upon the testimony of PW-1 Puran Dei, the mother of deceased Chaterpal. She had therein pronounced qua the deceased drawing from his employment under his employer wages @ Rs.3000/- per month besides his employer defraying to him diet money quantified at Rs.50 per day. Though, the aforesaid articulations made by PW-1 in her testification qua hence deceased Chaterpal, the predecessorin- interest of the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 herein cumulatively drawing wages @ Rs.4500/- per month, yet the learned Commissioner concluded of the amount of wages per month drawn by the deceased from his employment as a cleaner in the truck owned by respondents No.3 and 4 standing comprised in a sum of Rs.3000/- whereon he applied the relevant statutory principles for determination of compensation vis-a-vis the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 herein. Since, the learned Commissioner has taken only a sum of Rs.3000/- to be the per mensem wages drawn by the deceased from his employment as a cleaner under his employers, the aforesaid sum is visibly a just and reasonable sum of wages per mensem drawn by the deceased while his standing engaged as a cleaner in the ill-fated vehicle by his employers. In aftermath the aforesaid computation of wages per mensem drawn by the deceased while his standing engaged as cleaner in the ill fated vehicle by his employers does not warrant any interference. Even otherwise the Insurance company has not adduced the relevant best evidence comprised in its concerting to lead into the witness box the employers of the deceased wherefrom the apposite elicitations may have upsurged qua the deceased drawing wages per mensem in a figure lesser than Rs.3000/-. Consequently, reiteratedly, the conclusion drawn by the learned Commissioner qua the deceased drawing wages constituted in a sum of Rs.3000/- per mensem while his serving in the ill-fated vehicle as a cleaner under his employer warrants deference.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has contended of with the driving licence held by the driver, who at the relevant time was driving the ill-fated vehicle, licence whereof stands comprised in Ex. RW1/A holding reflections therewithin qua it authorizing him to drive a heavy transport vehicle, validity whereof enduring upto 30.12.2006. whereas with the ill-fated occurrence taking place on 17.01.2007, qua hence thereat the driving licence held by the driver of the ill-fated vehicle not holding any valid subsisting force, whereafter, he contends qua the fastening of