Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J.@mdashThe present Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the Judgment/Award dated
4th August, 2010 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Jamshedpur in connection with W.C.A. Case No. 6 of 2008, whereby
the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been directed to be paid Rs. 4,53,820 as compensation within 45 days from the date of order, failing which the
appellant shall have to pay interest @ 12% per annum. The brief facts behind institution of this case is that Niraj Mishra was employed as a driver
of Indica car bearing registration No. JH05L-8221. On 6th February, 2007 the aforesaid vehicle driven by Niraj Mishra met with an accident and
Niraj Mishra sustained injuries and died.
2. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment/award mainly on the ground that the vehicle bearing registration No. JH05L-8221 is owned
by respondent No. 3 who happens to be own brother of deceased Niraj Mishra and the story of employment of the deceased by his brother has
been cooked up only to lay a claim after his death. The claimants/respondents have not furnished any document or express agreement that Niraj
Mishra was employed under owner of the vehicle, Rakesh Mishra. In this case, the learned Counsel has relied on a judgment reported in the case
of Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, . It is contended that Hon''ble Apex Court
has held that story of employment of husband by the wife is nothing but a concoction only to get compensation after death of the husband. The
facts of the case in hand is almost similar and therefore the amount awarded is liable to be set aside.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/claimant Nos. 1 and 2 has opposed the argument and submitted that the evidence was adduced
before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation that deceased Niraj Mishra was employed as a driver of Indica car bearing registration No.
JH05L-8221, owned by Rakesh Mishra. The judgment referred to above is not applicable in view of the facts appearing in the case in hand. There
are many examples where unemployed brothers are employed by other brother who is having means. I have gone through the impugned award
and the materials placed before me. I do not think that there is any impediment in providing employment by one brother to another brother, if the
former is having sufficient means. If any business is run by any brother he would have his first choice to have assistance or provide employment to
his near and dear. Considering aforesaid view, I do not think that argument advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is tenable and
that would be the cogent ground for setting aside the impugned award.
It appears that the awarded amount of Rs. 4,33,820 has been deposited on 15th February, 2011 and the deposit was not within time indicated in
the impugned award. In that situation, the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation has directed to pay interest @ 12% from the date of death of
the deceased, to which I consider as penal interest and, therefore, that part of the award is set aside and the awarded amount deposited by the
appellant shall be given to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for which the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation shall take receipt and
peruse necessary documents for identification and other aspects. I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed with the
modification as indicated above.