Judgment :- D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This appeal is by the Insurance Company disputing the liability fastened on it though it had issued two Insurance Policies to cover the risk of the owner of a vehicle which was a peculiar carrier on which was installed a drilling unit and the vehicle was being essentially used as a driller. 2. It appears the insurance policy had provided coverage to the owner of the vehicle to cover claims put forth not only by the driver as an employee, but also had issued another policy providing group insurance coverage in respect of the employees other than the drivers. 3. The fact leading to the claim petition presented by the kith and kin of the deceased driver, who doubled up as a driver-cum-driller and while so working had met with his death due to an accident involving the driller vehicle and the claimants are the mother and younger brother of the deceased as dependents. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company, which provided insurance policy coverage, disputed the liability fastened on it on the premise that the employee being a driver, the policy had been issued to meet the requirement of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act could have been pressed into service only if the vehicle was being driven by the employee and undisputedly the vehicle being stationary, when the accident occurred and with only the driller machine as in operation, that policy was of no avail to the owner of the vehicle to meet the claim and it was contended before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation that the driver could not have worked as a driller without a valid drilling licence. But this stand failed before the Commissioner. 5. In the present appeal, while urging this ground Sri Lingaraj, learned Counsel for the appellant seeks to set aside the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmens’ Commission awarding a total compensation of Rs.4,23,580/- on this ground. Another ground urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, is that the quantification of income of the employee at Rs.4,000/- is on the higher side in the absence of any cogent material and that it should not have been more than Rs.3,000/-per month. 6. Another ground urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, is that the quantification of income of the employee at Rs.4,000/- is on the higher side in the absence of any cogent material and that it should not have been more than Rs.3,000/-per month. 6. Though the matter has come up for orders on the aspect of referring the matter to Lok Adalath, we have taken up he matter before the Court instead of driving the parties to the Lok Adalath we find that for resolution of a question of law, as contemplated used Section 30 of the Act, the Lok Adalat is not necessarily a proper forum. 7. It is rather strange to note that the matter is referred to Lok Adalath, though Sri. H.S. Longaraj, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri. Prakash, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 both submitted that neither of the parties viz., the appellant or the respondents nor their Counsel had made any request to refer the matter to Lok Adalath. 8. It appears it is only the voluntary act of the Registry, exercising suo motu power that the resulted in the matter being listed before the Court for “Referring the matter to Lok Adalath”! 9. We find registry embarking on such an exercise is rather an extravagant act and uncalled for. The Registrar (Judicial) to look into such matters, as for referring the matter to the Lok Adalath, the learned Counsel for the parties should have made a request to that effect. It is the primary duty of the Judges of this Court to look into matters instead of referring the matters to Lok Adalath and even registry should not indulge in impermissible or unauthorized acts. Registrar (judicial) is directed to submit a report in this regard. 10. Insofar as the merits of the matter is concerned, we find neither grounds canvassed on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company are tenable. It is a matter of regret that the Insurer who had provided two policies covering the risk of the owner and to comprehensively take care of the risks of the insured, against the claim of an employee either as drive or a driller, should now start disputing its liability to the detriment of the dependents of a deceased employee. 11. It is a matter of regret that the Insurer who had provided two policies covering the risk of the owner and to comprehensively take care of the risks of the insured, against the claim of an employee either as drive or a driller, should now start disputing its liability to the detriment of the dependents of a deceased employee. 11. Even assuming that the deceased employee had doubled up as a driver as well as a driller, as fairly submitted by Sri Lingaraj, learned Counsel for the appellant, there is no impediment in law for the driver also being utilized by the employer for operating the driller. We have not heard nor are we apprised of any licence being issued by any authority to function as a driller. There is no material placed before the Court to indicate that there was such a requirement in law. 12. Insofar as the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation is on the higher side on the premise that the income of the deceased driver-cum-driller is also on the higher side and no supporting material is produced, is concerned, we take judicial notice of the fact that a person working as a driver-cum-driller cannot work for a salary less than Rs.4,000/- and if at all it had to be much more than that. The fact that the Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation having rightly taken the income of the deceased employee and the deductions calculated, even in the absence of any supporting material, the Commissioner has only done a right thing. 13. We do not find any merit at all in the present appeal and it is only a frivolous appeal and therefore, dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.5,000/- on the appellant, which has to be deposited before the Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation within four weeks from today. 14. The amount in deposit before this Court, if any, is directed to be transferred to the Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation forthwith and the Commissioner to disburse this amount in favour of the claimants at the earliest without waiting for any further order.