JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 14-7-1997 passed by learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Hanumangarh (for short, referred to hereinafter as 'the Commissioner) whereby the Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,45,420/- in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4 (referred to hereinafter as 'the claimants') and against respondent No. 5 Hemender Kumar, owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and appellant New India Assurance Company Ltd. (for short, referred to hereinafter as 'the insurance company'). Aggrieved by the judgment and award impugned, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case to the extent they are necessary and relevant for the decision of this appeal are that on 8-5-1996 Mohan Singh, driver of mini-truck No. RJ 13/G 1512 sustained fatal injuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the employer respondent No. 5 Hemender Kumar - registered owner of the said truck. The said truck was, at the relevant time, insured with the appellant insurance company. The claimants who are the legal representatives of the deceased Mohan Singh filed the claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, referred to hereinafter as 'the Act') claiming compensation against the employer, and insurance company. Vide the judgment and award impugned, the Commissioner awarded compensation in favour of the claimants as noticed above holding the insurance company liable. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award impugned and carefully gone through the record of the Commissioner. 4. It is not in dispute that deceased Mohan Singh was engaged as a driver on the said truck (No. RJ 13/G 1512) which is owned and registered in the name of respondent No. 5, Hemender Kumar and was insured with the appellant for the period commencing from 29-06-1995 to 28-06-1996 and the accident took place on 8-5-1996 while the policy of insurance Ex. A-2 was in subsistence. Thus the fact that death of workman Mohan Singh was caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with his employer respondent No. 5 is not in dispute and, therefore, the employer is liable for compensation as provided in the Act. A-2 was in subsistence. Thus the fact that death of workman Mohan Singh was caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with his employer respondent No. 5 is not in dispute and, therefore, the employer is liable for compensation as provided in the Act. It is also not in dispute that on the relevant date of accident the truck involved in the accident was insured with the appellant insurance company. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was driving a light transport vehicle but on the relevant date of accident he was not having an effective driving licence. It was further contended that the driving licence Ex. 5-A issued in the name of the deceased authorised him to drive light motor vehicle for the period commencing from 28-6-1990 to 27-10-2010 and the endorsement to drive light transport vehicle was made on this licence by District Transport Office/licencing authority on 8-5-1996. The endorsement by which he was allowed to drive light transport vehicle as paid employee was made on 8-5-1996 which was valid upto the year 1999 and the said accident took place on 8-5-1996 itself and therefore, he contended that the insurance company cannot be held liable as the deceased was not holding an effective driving licence. 5. I have carefully gone through the record of the case, registration certificate of the motor vehicle involved in the accident Ex. A-1 which is light motor vehicle, insurance policy Ex. A-2 by which the said truck was insured for the period commencing from 29-6-1995 to 28-6-1996 on comprehensive insurance terms and the driving licence Ex. A-5 of deceased Mohan Singh. Undisputedly, the accident in question took place on 8-5-1996 while the deceased Mohan Singh was driving the light transport vehicle which is evident from the registration certificate issued by the District Transport Officer, Sriganganagar Ex. A-1. There is a specific endorsement on the licence Ex.-5A which clearly reveals that, it was issued on 28-6-1990 authorising the deceased to drive light motor vehicle the validity of which was with effect from 28-6-1990 to 2010. Subsequent thereto, he was authorised to drive light transport vehicle as paid employee on 08-05-1996. The validity of this endorsement was up to 7-5-1999. Subsequent thereto, he was authorised to drive light transport vehicle as paid employee on 08-05-1996. The validity of this endorsement was up to 7-5-1999. Thus from the perusal of the registration certificate and the driving licence of the deceased it is amply established that the deceased was holding a valid driving licence to drive light transport vehicle. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The condition mentioned in the policy authorises the persons or classes of persons under the caption "Persons or Classes of Persons entitled to drive" is written followed by words "licence holder". Thus the requirement of the policy is that the insurance company would be liable to indemnify the insured if the vehicle is driven by valid licence holder person. In the instant case, the deceased was driving the truck in question with a valid driving licence which fulfils the requirement of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder. More so no appeal shall lie under Section 30 of the Act against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. In the instant case, the controversy tried to be projected by the learned counsel for the appellant is a question of fact and, therefore, no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Hence, on both counts this appeal is devoid of any merit.Appeal dismissed. *******