JUDGMENT Sapre, J. -- 1. This is an appeal, filed by the claimants under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short called 'The Act') against an award dated 10.4.2003 passed by Commissioner, Workman Compensation (Labour Court, Indore) in WCF No. 2012001. By impugned award, the Commissioner partly allowed the application made by the claimants under section 10 of the Act and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,25,365/- for the death of one "Prakash". However, while passing an award, the Commissioner fastened the entire liability on R-l/NA-l i.e. owner/employer of the deceased and exonerated R-24/ A-2 i.e. Insurance Company from the liability. In other words, the application was allowed only against the NA-1/R-l but was dismissed as against Insurance Company (NA-2/R-2). It is against this partial dismissal as against the Insurance Company, the claimants have filed this appeal under section 30 ibid. So far as R-l/NA-1 is concerned, though he has suffered the award but has not chosen to challenge the same by filing any appeal. In this view of the matter, the impugned award in so far as it relates to fastening upon the liability on the R-l/NA-1 i.e. employer/owner of the offending vehicle is concerned, it has become final qua him. The only question, therefore that remains to be considered in this appeal is whether Commissioner (Workman Compensation) was justified in exonerating the Insurance Company (NA-2/R-2) from the liability? 2. Facts in brief are these. 3. Prakash, aged around 25 years was employed as Driver of Tempo bearing number CPU-635. This Tempo was insured with R-2 (NA-2). On 17.3.2001 when Prakash was going from a place called 'Vijay Nagar' to a place called 'Lasudia' in Indore town in the Tempo, it met with an accident. It is in this accident, the Tempo in question was damaged extensively so also Prakash who sustained injuries. He, however, later succumbed to the injuries. The legal representatives then filed an application before the Commissioner, Workman Compensation under section 10 of the Act out of which this appeal arises seeking compensation for his (Prakash) death. It was alleged that Prakash died during the course of employment as also death occurred arising out of the employment. It was alleged that he was getting Rs. The legal representatives then filed an application before the Commissioner, Workman Compensation under section 10 of the Act out of which this appeal arises seeking compensation for his (Prakash) death. It was alleged that Prakash died during the course of employment as also death occurred arising out of the employment. It was alleged that he was getting Rs. 3,000/- by way of monthly salary from his employment and hence applying the proper factor as defined in the Act, the compensation should be determined by ,passing an award in claimant's favour and against both i.e. employer of deceased (Prakash) NA-l/R-I as also Insurance ~ompany (NA-2/R-2) jointly and severally. The case was contested only by R-2 i.e. Insurance Company- whereas R-l (NA-l) remained ex-parte. The claimant filed copy of policy (cover note) in support of their case. As observed supra by impugned award, the Commissioner allowed the application and awarded compensation. It was held that deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/ - per month by way of salary. It was also held that since Driver's risk was not covered in the policy in question and hence, Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the risk of driver. In this view of the matter, the Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability. It is this award, which is impugned in this appeal. This appeal was admitted for final haring on following 2 substantial questions of law: "1. Whether Commissioner for workmens compensation committed an error of law in exonerating the Insurance Company on the ground that the deceased was not holding a valid driving licence; 2. Whether the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation has further erred in law that the driver of the vehicle was not covered under the policy issued by respondent?" 4. Heard Shri Sameer Verma, Advocate for applicant and Shri V.P. Khare, Advocate for respondent No.2. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal. 6. The issue relating to liability of the Insurance Company arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act in a case of vehicular accident resulting in causing bodily injury or death to any employee while in the employment remains no longer res integra. It is settled by the decision of Supreme Court reported in the case of2005 ACJ 1323 National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Prembai Patel. It is settled by the decision of Supreme Court reported in the case of2005 ACJ 1323 National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Prembai Patel. It is in this case, their lordships interpreted the provisions of section 147 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act and laid down the principles which determined the liability of Insurance Company qua employee who died in the accident. "12. The effect of this proviso is that if an insurance policy covers the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of death of or bodily injury to any such employee as is described in sub-clauses (a) or (b) or (c) of proviso (i) to section 147 (1) (b), it will be a valid policy and would comply with the requirements of Chapter XI of the Act." 13. The insurance policy being the nature of a contract, it is permissible for an owner to take such a policy whereunder the entire liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any such employee as is described in sub-clauses (a) or (b) or (c) of proviso (i) to section 147 (1) (b) may be fastened upon the Insurance Company and insurance may become liable to satisfy the entire award. However, for this purpose the owner must take a policy of that particular kind of which he may be required to pay an additional premium and the policy must clearly show that the liability of the Insurance Company in case of death of or bodily injury to the aforesaid kind of employees is not restricted to that provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act and is either more or unlimited depending upon the quantum of premium paid and the terms of the policy. 15. However, where the policy mentions 'a policy for Act liability' or 'Act liability', the liability of the Insurance Company qua the employees as aforesaid would not be unlimited but would be limited to that arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act." 16. 15. However, where the policy mentions 'a policy for Act liability' or 'Act liability', the liability of the Insurance Company qua the employees as aforesaid would not be unlimited but would be limited to that arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act." 16. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, had held that if the legal representatives of the deceased employee approach Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for payment of compensation to them by moving a petition under section 166 of the Act, the liability of the Insurance Company is not limited to the extent provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act and on its basis directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay the entire amount of 'compensation to claimants. As shown above, the insurance policy taken by the owner· contained a clause that it was a policy for 'Act liability' only." 7. Applying the aforesaid principle of law to the facts of these cases, it is clear from the cover note (at page No. 58 of trial Court record) that it refers to "Act only" in the column relating to accessories. We are, therefore, of the opinion that reference of the word. "Act only" in the policy in the absence of any other mentioning can be construed to mean that liability of employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act alone was covered by the policy, though limited to under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Since, the cover note did not show that any additional premium was paid by the insured to cover the unlimited liability arising out of accident and hence having regard to the nature of the policy issued by the Insurance Company and having regard to the reference of the words, they cannot deny their liability in toto. In other words, the Insurance Company was liable to suffer the liability arising out of the accident in question in relation to the employee (deceased) to the extent and limited to under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 8. In our view, therefore, the Commissioner was not right in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability in question in toto when admittedly the policy was in force and the accident in question did occur while the deceased was in the employment. In these circumstances, the case under the Workmen's Compensation Act against the Insurance Company was made out. We also notice that there is nothing on record to show that driver of vehicle had no licence. In these circumstances, the case under the Workmen's Compensation Act against the Insurance Company was made out. We also notice that there is nothing on record to show that driver of vehicle had no licence. In the first place, he remained ex-parte. Secondly, no evidence was adduced by Insurance Company on this issue. Thirdly, driver was also not examined as witness of company. In these circumstances, there was no occasion for the Commissioner to have come to a conclusion for want of proper pleading and evidence that driver had no licence. The burden being on the driver, he failed to discharge this burden. In this view of the matter, we answer the question No. I in appellant's favour and reverse the finding on this issue in appellant's favour. As a necessary consequence, the award in question should have also been passed jointly and severally against the both i.e. employer as also against the Insurance Company rather than only against the employer i.e. N/A-I. 9. Accordingly and in view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Impugned award of the Commissioner in so far as it relates to quantum of compensation and interest which is to be paid to the claimants (appellants herein) is concerned, the same is affirmed. However, the liability of the Insurance Company (R-2) to satisfy the award impugned in this appeal is concerned, the same would be restricted as against them i.e. Insurance Company to that arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act whereas respondent No. 1 (owner of Tempo ) would be liable to satisfy the remaining portion of the award. Parties now can quantify their liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act before Commissioner by filing an application for recovery of the awarded amount. In the event of any dispute in regard to quantification, the Commissioner, Workman Compensation shall determine the amount of quantification if occasion arises and in the event, if either party dispute the quantum claimed by the claimant. The impugned award is, accordingly, modified to this extent as indicated hereinabove. No cost.