JUDGMENT : Sushil Kukreja, J. Since both these appeals are the offshoots of impugned order dated 26.08.2023, passed by learned Employees Compensation Commissioner, Court No. 1, Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the learned Commissioner), they are taken up together for consideration and disposal. 2. Appellant-National Insurance Company Limited, who was respondent No. 2 before the learned Commissioner below, maintained appeal (FAO No. 322 of 2023) under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act (for short “the Act”), against award dated 26.08.2023, passed by learned Commissioner below under Employee’s compensation Act, in Case Registration No. 1 of 2021, whereby the learned Commissioner allowed the petition filed by Smt. Mala Vati (one of the respondents herein), who was petitioner (claimant) before the learned Commissioner below, under Section 3 read with Section 22 of the Act and granted her compensation to the tune of Rs.24,36,588/-, with a prayer to quash and set-aside the impugned award by dismissing the claim petition filed by the petitioner/claimant. 3. One of the respondents before the learned Commissioner below, Smt. Girja Thakur (owner of the vehicle) also filed appeal, i.e., FAO No. 188 of 2025, against the impugned award passed by the learned Commissioner below, with a prayer to quash and set-aside the impugned award passed by the learned Commissioner below. 4. As per the award passed by the learned Commissioner below, the respondents, i.e., Smt. Girja Thakur (owner of the vehicle) and National Insurance Company Limited (insurer) were saddled to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation to the petitioner/claimant. 5. The facts giving rise to the instant appeals can be encapsulated as under: 5(a). Petitioner-Smt. Mala Vati filed a petition before the learned Commissioner below under Section 3 read with Section 22 of the Act seeking compensation. As per the petitioner, deceased-Pritam Singh was her son, and he was employed by Smt. Girja Thakur (respondent No. 1 before the learned Commissioner below) as Driver to drive vehicle bearing registration No. HP-65B-0909. The deceased had authorization to drive the class of vehicle whereupon he was employed to drive the vehicle in question by respondent No. 1. The salary of the deceased was Rs.8000/- per month. On 20.10.2020, the deceased was driving the aforesaid vehicle and going towards Gohar via Kelodhar-Bassi and there were other occupants in the vehicle as well. The deceased had authorization to drive the class of vehicle whereupon he was employed to drive the vehicle in question by respondent No. 1. The salary of the deceased was Rs.8000/- per month. On 20.10.2020, the deceased was driving the aforesaid vehicle and going towards Gohar via Kelodhar-Bassi and there were other occupants in the vehicle as well. When the vehicle of the deceased reached near Dharot, due to mechanical fault, it rolled down the hill and consequently the deceased died on the spot and predecessor of respondent No. 1-Smt. GirjaThakur, in an injured condition, was brought to CHC, Gohar, District Mandi, H.P., wherefrom he was shifted to Zonal Hospital, Mandi, H.P. and ultimately to IGMC, Shimla, where he died on 24.10.2020. As per the petitioner, the accident occurred during the course of employment. At the time of the accident, respondent No.2 (National Insurance Company Limited) was the insurer of the vehicle in question. The deceased was hale and hearty man of 35 years and he used to earn Rs.8000/- per month, being driver of respondent No. 1 and Rs.12000/- per month from agriculture and other allied works. He was sole bread winner of the family, as he used to spend his entire salary towards the maintenance of the petitioner. Lastly, the petitioner-claimant sought compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondents. 6. Respondent No. 1-Smt. Girja Thakur, in her reply, admitted that the petitioner was dependent on the deceased and the deceased was in her employment as driver. The vehicle, i.e., HP65B-0909, met with an accident due to which the deceased lost his life and at that time the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2. As per respondent No. 1, she was not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner-claimant, as it was insured with respondent No. 2. 7. Respondent No. 2 in its reply took preliminary objections that the particulars of the policy of the vehicle, driver’s license and the amount of compensation claimed were not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and there was no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and respondent No. 1. The replying respondents, on merits, due to lack of knowledge, denied the facts that the deceased was engaged as employee by respondent No. 1 and the petitioner was the legal heir of the deceased. The replying respondents, on merits, due to lack of knowledge, denied the facts that the deceased was engaged as employee by respondent No. 1 and the petitioner was the legal heir of the deceased. As per the replying respondent, the deceased was not an employee under the provisions of the Act and no intimation was furnished by respondent No. 1 qua the fact of employment of the deceased and his death. It was averred that the deceased did not sustain injuries during the course of his employment. Lastly, the replying respondent sought dismissal of the claim petition. 8. On 18.08.2023 on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner below framed the following issues: “1. Whether the applicant is entitled to amount of compensation along with interest against respondent and to what extent against each other? OPA 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to cost of litigation? OPA. 3. Whether the application in hand lacks particulars, as would warrant its being allowed, if so, the consequences of such deficiency? OPR. 4. Whether there is no relationship of employer-employee between deceased and respondent No. 1? OPR. 5. Relief.” 9. After deciding issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner, issues No. 3 and 4 against the respondents, the petition was allowed. 10. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited preferred appeal, i.e., FAO No. 322 of 2023, with a prayer to quash and set-aside the impugned award passed by the learned Commissioner below. On 17.11.2024 the appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the learned Commissioner below has erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.14,000/- per month in the absence of any cogent and convincing documentary evidence that too when respondent/petitioner have claimed Rs.8,000/- per month as salary in her claim petition and respondent No. 2 have not submitted in her reply that deceased was being paid Rs.200/- per day as such further erred in relying upon evidence beyond the pleadings? 2. Whether the learned Commissioner below has erred in awarding interest @ 12% for three years four months instead of two years 9 months and further erred in awarding 12% even on the amount of compensation which already includes interest?” 11. 2. Whether the learned Commissioner below has erred in awarding interest @ 12% for three years four months instead of two years 9 months and further erred in awarding 12% even on the amount of compensation which already includes interest?” 11. Respondent No. 1-Smt. Girja Thakur also feeling dissatisfied, preferred appeal, FAO No. 188 of 2025, with a prayer to quash and set-aside the impugned award passed by the learned Commissioner below. On 06.11.2025, the said appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the impugned decision dated 26.08.2023 passed by learned Commissioner Employees Compensation Act is perverse being contrary to the facts, evidence as well as law? 2. Whether the learned Commissioner Employees Compensation Act, has committed grave error while not returning finding on the point that who is liable to pay compensation to the claimant/petitioner.” 12. As noted in the initial part of this judgment, since both these appeals are the offshoots of impugned award dated 26.08.2023, passed by learned Commissioner below, these are taken up together for consideration and disposal. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the learned Commissioner below has erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.14,000/- per month, as the employer has not even stated a single word in the reply that in addition to Rs.8000/- per month a sum of Rs.200/- was also being paid as daily allowance to the deceased. He further submitted that while awarding the interest, the learned Commissioner below has erroneously awarded interest for three years and four months, whereas, the interest has to be awarded for a period of two years and nine months as the liability to pay compensation starts after one month from the date of the accident till the date of deposit of the amount. 14. The learned counsel for appellant-Smt. Girja Thakur, i.e., owner of the vehicle (appellant in FAO No. 188 of 2025) contended that the learned Commissioner has erred in holding that the liability to pay the compensation is of the employer, as the vehicle was duly insured and in that eventuality the commissioner below should have directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner/claimant. 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and carefully examined the entire record. 16. 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and carefully examined the entire record. 16. Since the substantial questions of law framed in both the appeals are interlinked and are the offshoots of the impugned award, they are taken up together for discussion. 17. The petitioner, while appearing in the witness-box as PW-4, deposed that she was legal heir and dependent of the deceased-Pritam Singh, who was her son. She further deposed that the deceased was the employee of respondent No. 1-Smt. Girja Thakur (appellant in FAO No. 188 of 2025), who had employed him as driver to drive his vehicle, bearing registration No. HP65B-0909, and he was being paid a salary of Rs.8000/- per month besides daily dietary allowance in the sum of Rs.200/- per day. Respondent No. 1-owner of the vehicle stepped into the witness-box as RW- 1. She categorically deposed that she was the mother of Surender Pal and her son had purchased vehicle bearing No. HP-65B-0909 and engaged the deceased-Pritam Singh as driver on monthly salary of Rs.8000/- and daily allowance of Rs.200/-. 18. The factum of accident and death of the deceased out of and in the course of employment is not disputed. From the perusal of the evidence on record, it is clear that respondent No. 1 had admitted the monthly wages of the deceased as Rs.8000/- plus daily allowance of Rs.200/-. Thus, it has been duly proved that the deceased was being paid a salary of Rs.8000/- per month, besides he was also being paid Rs.200/- as daily dietary allowance Hence, the learned Commissioner below had not committed any illegality while assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.14,000/- per month. After assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.14,000/- per month, determination of compensation amount in sum of Rs.13,84,420/-arrived at by the learned Commissioner is correct which needs no interference. 19. Now, the nest question which arises for consideration is as to for what period the petitioner/claimant is entitled to statutory interest. The learned Commissioner below had awarded interest @ 12% per annum for a total period of three years and four months. As per Section 4A(3)(a) of the EC Act, the claimant is entitled for statutory interest at the rate of 12% per annum within one month from the date it fell due. The learned Commissioner below had awarded interest @ 12% per annum for a total period of three years and four months. As per Section 4A(3)(a) of the EC Act, the claimant is entitled for statutory interest at the rate of 12% per annum within one month from the date it fell due. At this stage, it would be apt to reproduce Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act, which is as under: “[4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.- (1) ……. (2) …….. (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall- (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the official Gazette, on the amount due; and ……..” 20. Thus, right of the petitioner/claimant entitling statutory interest starts after one month from the date of accident, i.e. from 20.10.2020. That means, if the appellant, i.e., the employer had deposited the amount before the learned Commissioner on or before 20.11.2020, then the appellant need not pay any interest, but the appellant had not deposited the amount before 20.11.2020. As observed earlier, the claimant’s right to receive statutory interest starts after one month from the date of accident. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 20.10.2020, therefore, the claimant has the right to receive compensation as per Section 4A(3)(a) of the EC Act along with statutory interest after thirty days from the date of accident till deposit is made. 21. Thus, after calculating the interest @ 12% per annum for the period of two years and nine months on the sum of Rs.13,84,420/-, i.e., from 20.11.2020 till 26.08.2023, total amount of interest comes to Rs.4,54,695/-. Hence, the total amount of compensation alongwith interest would work out to Rs.18,39,115/- ( Rs.13,84,420/- + Rs.4,54,695/-). 22. The perusal of the award further shows that the learned Commissioner below has directed the respondents to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the total amount of compensation alongwith interest would work out to Rs.18,39,115/- ( Rs.13,84,420/- + Rs.4,54,695/-). 22. The perusal of the award further shows that the learned Commissioner below has directed the respondents to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was duly insured with the Insurance Company, i.e., National Insurance Company (appellant in FAO No. 322 of 2023), therefore, it is the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify respondent No. 1, as there is nothing on record to suggest that the owner-Smt. Girja Thakur had committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, it is the Insurance Company who would be liable to pay the amount of compensation along with statutory interest to the petitioner/claimant. 23. Hence, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the petitioner/claimant is held entitled to the compensation amount in the sum of Rs.18,39,115/-alongwith future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award till the date of the deposit and the same shall be paid by the National Insurance Company (appellant in FAO No. 322 of 2023). 24. Both the appeals stand disposed of in the above terms and the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.