JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. This appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act (in short ‘the EC Act’) against order dated 1.8.2012 passed by the Commissioner, under Employees Compensation Act, Solan in WCA No. 23/2 of 2011 titled Kharak Bahadur vs. Rajesh Sood and another, whereby the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation has awarded compensation amounting to Rs.42,129.60 Ps. with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 11.11.2004 i.e. from one month after the date of accident. 2 Parties shall be referred, hereinafter, as per their status as claimant/petitioner, owner (respondent No.1) and Insurance Company (respondent No.2). 3 Claimant had instituted a claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (now the Employees Compensation Act) against the owner and Insurance Company for awarding compensation for multiple injuries, including fracture in his right leg, sustained by him on 10.10.2004 while he was discharging his duty as driver and replacing/changing the punctured tyre of the vehicle i.e. Truck No. HP-14-6797. 4 The claimant was taken to the Civil Hospital, Kandaghat and thereafter to the Zonal Hospital, Solan and he was also treated at Saket in Institute for the Orthopedically Handicapped, Sector-1, Panchkula (Haryana) where he remained admitted for a considerable period. As per claimant, he had spent more than Rs.50,000/- for his treatment. 5 It is further case of claimant that he was getting Rs.4000/- per month as fixed salary plus Rs.70/- per day as daily allowance. Though accident took place on 10.10.2004, but claim petition was preferred in January, 2007 along with an application for condonation of delay on the ground that owner of truck had been assuring him for payment of compensation/amount spent by him for his treatment but he did not pay the same despite repeated requests made by claimant compelling the claimant to file claim petition. 6 In response to petition, owner of vehicle denied the status of claimant as driver and also denied that he suffered injuries during the course of employment as, according to owner, claimant was not driver on the vehicle on the day of accident. 7 Insurance Company had also resisted the claim petition by taking usual objections related to cause of action, collusiveness, without valid registration certificate and route permit with denial of plea of claimant that he was employed by respondent No.1-owner and met with accident during the course of employment. 7 Insurance Company had also resisted the claim petition by taking usual objections related to cause of action, collusiveness, without valid registration certificate and route permit with denial of plea of claimant that he was employed by respondent No.1-owner and met with accident during the course of employment. 8 On appreciating pleadings of parties and evidence on record, Commissioner passed impugned award which is under challenge in this appeal. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether in the absence of employer-employee relationship between respondent No.2 and injured proved on record, the Insurance Company could be made liable to pay the amount as compensation to the claimant? 2. Whether the indemnification of the claim by insurer could be ordered when injured/claimant was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the truck and thereby, breach of the policy conditions as regards the driver’s clause was committed? 3. Whether interest for period from 11.11.2004 till deposit/payment could be ordered to be paid to the claimant by the appellant/insurer when the compensation amount due and payable to claimant was determined by Ld. Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 01.08.2012 when the claim petition was decided? 4. Whether the claimant could be allowed amount on account of interest prior to the date of filing the claim petition which was time barred and application seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition was filed? 9 Claimant examined himself as PW1 by tendering his examination-in-chief on affidavit Ext.PW2/A. PW1 Dr. Ashish Sharma, proved the medical examination of claimant and 10% permanent disability, with respect to right leg, suffered by him, as depicted in certificate Ext.PW1/A. 10 PW3 Kishan Chand and PW4 Puran Chand have filed their examination-in-chief(s) on affidavit(s) Ext.PW3/A and Ext.PW4/A respectively. 11 PW3 Kishan chand was accompanying the claimant on the day of accident as his friend, who was also driver by profession. PW4 Puran Chand is neighbour of claimant Kharak Bahadur. He provided his car to Kharak Bahadur to visit the hospital as well as the place of residence of owner Rajesh Sood for requesting him to pay the compensation to the claimant. PW4 Puran Chand is neighbour of claimant Kharak Bahadur. He provided his car to Kharak Bahadur to visit the hospital as well as the place of residence of owner Rajesh Sood for requesting him to pay the compensation to the claimant. Claimant has also placed on record the copy of driving licence Ext.PW2/B and copy of Log Book Ext.PW2/C. 12 The respondent/Insurance Company examined Tamanna Kagra, Assistant Manager of Oriental Insurance Company as RW1, who deposed that claimant was not driver of respondent No.1 at the time of accident, with further submissions that no information by driver or owner of vehicle, regarding the accident, was given to the Company. RW2 Chet Singh has also been examined by Insurance Company to prove the record/renewal of driving licence of claimant. 13 RW3 Bal Kishan has proved the screening report of vehicle HP-14-6797 as Ext.RW3/A. He has proved that Insurance Policy of the vehicle was comprehensive. Owner of vehicle Rajesh appeared as RW4 and denied the relation of employer and employee at the time of accident. 14 RW1 Tamanna deposed that Kharak Bahadur was not driver at the time of accident of the truck in reference. However, she has admitted that she was not having information in this regard and this fact was deposed by her as per stand taken by owner of truck. 15 Owner of truck RW4 Rajesh Sood, in his examination-in- chief, placed on record as Ext.RW4/A, has denied the relationship of employee and employer with claimant but in cross-examination, when he was confronted with entries of Ext.PW2/C, the Log Book of the truck, where Kharak Bahadur has been depicted as driver in his truck, he has stated that Kharak Bahadur was driver with him till November, 2003 and, thereafter, he had engaged one Sohan Lal as driver because Kharak Bahadur had left the job. Though owner has stated that he had been keeping the salary record with respect to disbursement of salary to driver but he could not produce such record as well as Log Book to substantiate that at the time of accident, Sohan Lal was driver, but not Kharak Bahadur. However, it is also apt to record that he has admitted in his cross-examination that he had been paying Rs.4000/- per month salary to Kharak Bahadur but had denied about payment of daily over and above the aforesaid amount. However, it is also apt to record that he has admitted in his cross-examination that he had been paying Rs.4000/- per month salary to Kharak Bahadur but had denied about payment of daily over and above the aforesaid amount. 16 From Log Book, placed on record Ext.PW2/C, it is apparent that Kharak Bahadur was engaged as driver by Rajesh Sood. This Log Book pertains to the year 2023. Claimant had clarified that he was having this Log Book only in his possession and, therefore, he had placed it on record, but for want of possession of subsequent Log Book, which was in possession of owner of truck, he could not produce the subsequent Log Book to place the same on record to substantiate that he was truck driver with owner at the time of accident. The fact of possession of Log Book with owner has not been disputed nor any further record including the next Log Book has been placed on record by owner to substantiate his claim that after November, 2003, Kharak Bahadur was not driver and instead, one Sohan Lal was driver. 17 Though initially there was denial with respect to employer and employee relationship, however, on confrontation with material on record, including the Log Book, owner was constrained to admit the fact that Kharak Bahadur, at least till 2003, was driver on his vehicle. For non-production of subsequent record, an adverse inference is to be drawn against owner to presume that Kharak Bahadur was continuing as driver after 2003 till the occurrence of accident in the year 2004. Present case has to be decided on the principle of preponderance of probability but not on the basis of principle of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal trials. 18 Therefore, Employee’s Commissioner has rightly held that Insurance Company was liable to pay the amount of compensation as for the material on record the employee and employer relationship was in existence between the claimant and owner of the truck and therefore, claimant was entitled for compensation from the employer, which would be paid by Insurance Company to claimant for indemnifying the insured for issuance/purchase of Policy placed on record as Ext.RW1/B. 19 The validity of driving licence has been disputed by appellant-Insurance Company. Whereas validity of licnece of claimant Kharak Bahadur entitling him to drive the transport vehicle has been duly proved by witness produced by owner as well as Insurance Company itself as RW2 Chet Singh, who had brought record of driving licnece of Kharak Bahadur which was produced on record by PW2 claimant. 20 From the copy of driving licence Ext.PW2/B, it is clearly apparent that licence was issued to drive heavy goods vehicle vide endorsement dated 7.11.1997 made by the Registration and Licensing Authority, Sunni, District Shimla and continuation of licence stands proved from further endorsement on driving licence dated 17.1.2002 whereby vide R.No.1118-SS/2001, the licence was renewed as valid upto 16.1.2005 w.e.f. 17.1.2002. The accident took place on 10.10.2004. 21 RW1 Tamanna in her cross-examination has admitted that Kharak Bahadur had supplied a copy of licence to the Company and she has admitted that this licence was valid for driving heavy goods vehicle. In view of her admission in cross-examination that copy of driving licnece was handed over by claimant to Company also depicts that it is not a case where claimant has suddenly waken up from slumber but it is the case where victim was pursuing the matter for getting the compensation and for that reason only, he had supplied a copy of driving licence to the Insurance Company. RW2 Chet Singh in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that licence of Kharak Bahadur was valid upto 16.1.2005 for driving heavy good vehicles w.e.f. 7.11.1997 and further that on 10.10.2004 this licence was valid for driving the truck. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that claimant Kharak Bahadur was having valid driving licence at the time of accident. 22 Replacing the punctured tyre with help of jack is part of job of driver and conductor and, therefore, this fact is to be treated as an act in furtherance to employment of claimant as driver on truck and this incident cannot be said as a happening occurred beyond the scope of course of employment. Accident took place on 10.10.2004 and Commissioner has awarded interest on awarded amount w.e.f. 11.11.2004. Commissioner has awarded this interest in consonance with provisions of Employees Compensation Act where it has been provided that interest shall be payable from one month after the date of accident. Accident took place on 10.10.2004 and Commissioner has awarded interest on awarded amount w.e.f. 11.11.2004. Commissioner has awarded this interest in consonance with provisions of Employees Compensation Act where it has been provided that interest shall be payable from one month after the date of accident. 23 So far as delay in filing the claim petition is concerned, claimant had categorically stated that filing of petition was delayed on account of assurance being extended by owner. Therefore, it is not the claimant on whose fault, there was delay in filing the claim petition but it was the owner of truck, because of whose assurance filing of petition was deferred and delayed. Further the issue related to filing claim petition after 4 years already stands decided in favour of claimant when the Commissioner had entertained the claim petition filed by claimant on its own merits. Thus, on this count also, no error has been committed by the Commissioner by directing the payment of interest from 11.11.2004. 24 From aforesaid discussion as well as from record, it is apparent that the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation has not committed any mistake, illegality, irregularity during appreciation of material placed before him and award passed by him is legal, just and fair whereby he has endorsed the employer and employee relationship  between  the  claimant  and  owner  of  truck  and  has directed to pay the compensation to claimant w.e.f. 11.11.2004 and also by holding that claimant was having valid driving licence to drive the truck at the relevant point of time. 25 Therefore, the substantial questions of law are decided in aforesaid terms against the appellant-Insurance Company and owner of truck but in favour of claimant Kharak Bahadur or his successors- in-interest as he has expired during pendency of present proceedings. Accordingly appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.