Judgment : GURUSHARAN SHARMA, HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, JJ. ( 1 ) ADMITTEDLY, Bhola Ram alias Bangali Ram was employed as a khalasi on the vehicle bearing registration no. BR 13-B 0037, which was owned by late Madan Lal Jain. He died leaving behind a widow Tara Devi and a son, vikas Jain. In the claim application filed under Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act)for compensation, the claimant Bulaki Ram named Tara Devi, wife of Madan Lal Jain, as owner of the vehicle and impleaded her as party. Her son Vikas Jain thereafter appeared and contended that he was the owner of the vehicle and not his mother, tara Devi. As such the name of Tara Devi was deleted and in her place Vikas Jain was impleaded as owner of the vehicle. ( 2 ) IN his written statement, Vikas Jain had admitted employment of the deceased as khalasi of the vehicle in question and according to him the deceased was just 22 years old and was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,500 per month. According to the claimant no doubt the deceased was 22 years old at the time of the accident but he was getting Rs. 2,400 per month as salary. However, no documentary evidence was produced by either party in support of the monthly salary of the deceased khalasi. ( 3 ) THE court below, therefore, assessed the monthly salary of the deceased khalasi at Rs. 1,680 in accordance with Minimum wages Act and calculated the total amount of Rs. 1,85,950 payable as compensation under the Act. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was insured for the period from 29. 6. 2001 to 28. 6. 2002 with National Insurance Co. Ltd. , having insurance policy no. 2000/6733846. ( 5 ) THE insurance company also filed written statement and contested the case. According to it, Rajesh Kumar Singh, the driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence at the relevant time. In support of its contention a photocopy of the certificate granted by the District transport Officer, Hazaribagh, was filed to show that the driving licence No. 1445 of 1996 was not issued from his office. According to it, Rajesh Kumar Singh, the driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence at the relevant time. In support of its contention a photocopy of the certificate granted by the District transport Officer, Hazaribagh, was filed to show that the driving licence No. 1445 of 1996 was not issued from his office. The insurance company on this basis has claimed that the terms of the insurance policy were violated and, therefore, it was not responsible to indemnify the owners liability to pay any compensation amount to the claimant as the employer of the deceased. ( 6 ) AGAINST the impugned judgment and award the insurance company only challenged its responsibility to pay the compensation amount. Hence, prayer has been made to modify the impugned judgment/ award to the extent that instead of insurer, the owner of the vehicle in question, being the employer of the deceased, would pay the compensation amount. ( 7 ) WITHOUT going into the academic question in this appeal as to whether on account of invalid driving licence possessed by the driver of the vehicle in question, the insurance company was responsible to indemnify the owners liability who was also employer of the deceased or not, we find that in the present case the insurer although pleaded in its written statement the invalidity of the driving licence in question, but failed to prove it. Neither the original certificate of District Transport officer, Hazaribagh issued in this regard was produced, nor any competent person was examined as a witness to prove the same. Hence, the court below, in our view, rightly negatived the insurers contention of the invalidity of the driving licence. ( 8 ) IN our view, there is no occasion for any intervention in the impugned judgment award by this court in the present appeal filed under section 30 of the Act. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .