JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The appellant, Insurance Company, herein, has put a challenge to the impugned award, as it had been rendered by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner / Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, in the proceedings of Employee Compensation Application No. 274 of 2014, Smt. Ganga Devi Vs. Shri Pitamber Kandpal and another, whereby, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani, while adjudicating upon the award and the claim which was raised by the claimant, respondent No. 1, herein, had partially decreed the award in favour of the claimant, directing therein, to the Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs.3,20,773/-, along with Rs. 5,000/- as an amount payable towards the funeral expenses, i.e. totalling to an amount of Rs.3,75,773/- to the claimants, as a compensation along with an interest payable on it @ 8%, from the date of accident, till the date of its actual payment.

2. The appellant, herein, i.e. the Insurance Company, and had invoked, Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, hereinafter to be called as an Act of 1923, putting a challenge to the award on various counts, and particularly, the basic ground of challenge to the award dated 27.07.2015, was based on a premise, that since the death had not occurred due to the "accident", and because of fact that, accordingly to the appellant, the cause of death was not or it cannot be attributed to have chanced during the course of employment, no compensation, at all could be paid to the claimants and particularly, by the Insurance Company itself, with whom, the offending vehicle, in question, was registered.

3. Further, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, if the provisions which are contained under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, are taken into consideration, in fact, the amount of compensation, which could be awarded by the Compensation Commissioner, he does not have a power to award the funeral expenses, as according to him none of the provisions contained therein under the Act, provides for the payment of funeral expenses, apart from it, it was contended that the interest as awarded, on the awarded amount, apart from the fact that, it was on the higher side, but the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, since has no power to levy interest on the awarded amount and hence, levying of the interest @ 8% from the date of the accident, too was not sustainable, in the eyes of law, being contrary to the provisions of Act of 1923.

4. It was further contended by the appellant's Counsel, for the Insurance Company, that since the claimant, prior to the initiation of the proceedings before the Compensation Commissioner, in the absence of there being a prior notice issued to them under Section 10 of the Act, the entire proceedings would be vitiated.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, had submitted, that after the occurrence of the alleged accident, the deceased, when he fainted and became unconscious, he was taken to the hospital and before he could reach, to the hospital, he met with the sad demise, however, later on, an FIR was also alleged to have been registered and a post mortem was conducted on the deceased, but as per the opinion which was expressed by the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem on the deceased, had not been able to ascertain or opined any specific reason for the cause of death, and rather the visera was preserved, which was later on sent for examination in the FSL Laboratory.

6. But, for the purposes of scrutinizing the aforesaid set of arguments, the brief facts, which are necessarily required to be considered by this Court, for the purposes of arriving at a logical conclusion, are that the facts, which apparently engages consideration, are that the bus, in question, i.e. bearing registration No. UK-04-PA/0170, the owner of which, was respondent No. 2, was being plied under a contract with the KMOU Limited, and on the date of the incident, i.e. 1