( 2025:HHC:8840 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No. 600 of 2018. Decided on : 2 nd April, 2025. National Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant. Versus Bimla Devi & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Ms. Seema Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Heard. 2. The instant appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the monthly income assessed by learned Commissioner amounting to Rs.10,100/- per month is sustainable ignoring the provisions of the law as applicable under Section 4(1)(a) of the EC Act and without any proper and adequate evidence? 2. Whether the learned Commissioner was justified in imposing the interest from the date of accident and imposing penalty of interest on Insurance Company in the absence of any contract or statutory provisions empowering him to do so, that too from the date of accident? 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:8840 ) 3. Whether the driver having licence to drive light motor vehicles, is there a necessity of obtaining endorsement to drive the transport vehicle when the transport vehicle is of class of light motor vehicle?” 3. The insurer/appellant has taken exception to the award dated 30.12.2016 passed by learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in WCA No. 3/2 of 2011. 4. The date of birth of deceased has been proved to be 19.04.1991. The accident had taken place on 03.01.2011. Compensation has been assessed by the learned Commissioner by considering the monthly income of deceased at Rs.10,100/-. Thus, the income for the purpose of compensation has been calculated at Rs.5050/- per month. Learned Commissioner has further considered the age of deceased at 20 years and the factor of 224.00 has been applied. In this manner, total compensation of Rs.11,31,200/- has been awarded. 5. Learned counsel for the insurer has submitted that the income of the deceased could not have been taken to be more than Rs.8000/- per month in light of the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act (for short “the Act”). According to her, the monthly income of 3 ( 2025:HHC:8840 ) the deceased for assessing compensation should have been Rs.4,000/-. The contention so raised by learned counsel for the insurer being backed by the specific provision of the Act, has not been disputed by the claimants. Thus, there is no hesitation to hold that the learned Commissioner has erred in considering the monthly income of deceased at Rs.5,050/- for the purpose of grant of compensation. 6. The record also reveals that the learned Commissioner has applied the factor of 224.00 on the premise that the deceased had completed 20 years on the date of accident. The findings recorded by the learned Commissioner to this effect are erroneous for the reason that the deceased had not completed the age of 20 years on the date of accident. In this view of the matter, the relevant factor which was to be applied in the instant case is 225.22. 7. In result, the claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.9,00,880/- (Rs.4000x225.22). The substantial question of law No.1 is decided accordingly. 8. The impugned award reveals that the learned Commissioner has awarded interest @12% per annum w.e.f. 03.02.2011 i.e. one month after the date of accident and the liability to pay the compensation along with interest has been fastened upon the insurer. I find no illegality or perversity in 4 ( 2025:HHC:8840 ) so far as the award of interest and fastening of liability is concerned. Once the insurer has been held to pay the compensation, it cannot escape the liability to pay the interest. Substantial questions of Law No.2 is answered accordingly. 9. Indisputably, the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was holding licence to drive light motor vehicle. The insurer has contended that the driver was not entitled to drive the vehicle in question which was commercial vehicle. It has been proved on record that the vehicle involved in the instant case was being plied as a taxi. However, the laden weight of the vehicle was less than 7500 kilogram. In this view of the matter, again the argument raised by the insurer deserves to be rejected. It is settled proposition of law that a person holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle is entitled to drive any vehicle which has laden weight less than 7500 kilograms. Substantial questions of law No.3 is answered accordingly. 10. In light of above analysis, the appeal is disposed of by partly accepting the same. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 30.12.2016 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Solan, District Solan, in WCA No.3/2 of 211 is modified to the above extent. 5 ( 2025:HHC:8840 ) 11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 2nd April, 2025. (jai)