JUDGMENT V.K. Bist, J. 1. This appeal, preferred under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the judgment and award dated 24.09.2008 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Tehri Garhwal, New Tehri (for brevity WCC) in Workman Compensation Case No. 14 of 2006, whereby the amount of Rs. 3,40,452/- is awarded in favour of the claimants/respondent nos. 1 to 4 and the liability of payment of compensation was fastened upon respondent no.5 (owner of the vehicle) through the appellant (being the insurer of the vehicle). 2. Brief facts of the case are that an application was moved by the claimants (respondent nos. 1 to 4) before the WCC, alleging that son of claimant no.1, namely, Baldeo Singh was employed as driver of vehicle Truck No. U.P.-08-0744 and the respondent no.5 was the owner of said vehicle. While performing his duties as such, on 23/24.02.2006 the said vehicle met with an accident at Kotigar Tok in Chamba-Dharasu motorway resulting the death of Baldwo Singh. Late Baldeo Singh was getting a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as his salary and at the time of death he was aged about 24 years. Information was given to police station Chamba and postmortem of the body was conducted at combined hospital Bauradi, New Tehri. Owner of the vehicle also came to know about the accident. The owner of the vehicle declined to pay compensation for the untimely death of Baldeo Singh saying that his Truck was insured, therefore the claimants moved application for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,46,175/-with interest @ 18 per cent from the date of filing the claim petition. A W.C.A. Case No. 14 of 2006 was registered and the owner and the insurance company of the vehicle in question were summoned. Respondent no.5/owner of the vehicle filed his written statement with the averments that the deceased was employed as driver in his Truck on the date, time and place. He declined that the deceased was being paid Rs. 5,000/- rather submitted that the deceased was employed on daily wage on Rs. 60/- per day. Respondent no.5/owner of the vehicle filed his written statement with the averments that the deceased was employed as driver in his Truck on the date, time and place. He declined that the deceased was being paid Rs. 5,000/- rather submitted that the deceased was employed on daily wage on Rs. 60/- per day. It was asserted that his Truck was duly insured with M/s National Insurance Company Ltd., Chamba and at the time of the incident the Truck was having valid registration, fitness, permit and insurance, inasmuch as, the driver was having valid licence, therefore the liability, if any, is upon the Insurance Company/appellant. The insurance company/appellant also filed its written statement, in which the insurance company took plea that employment and salary of the deceased is not proved; demand of compensation has been exaggerated that too without any basis; there is no proof of the age of deceased as the claimants did not produce the injury report, postmortem and the details of insurance; no notice was given under Section 10 of the Act and the owner of the vehicle has violated the conditions contained in the policy, therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation awarded by the WCC. In support of their assertions the claimants and the owner of the Truck filed oral and documentary evidence before the WCC, however the insurance company filed no evidence, in any form. Upon hearing the parties, the WCC passed order dated 24.09.2008 whereby an amount of Rs. 3,40,452/- was awarded in favour of the claimants/ respondent nos. 1 to 4 and the liability of payment of compensation was fastened upon the insurance company/appellant. The WCC held out that on the fateful date, time and accident, the deceased was employed in the vehicle in question owned by respondent no.5, and he died, while performing his duties, in said accident on account of grievous injuries inflicted in his body, at the time of his death, the deceased was 28 years of age and was receiving a sum of Rs. 3,215/- per month; the owner of the vehicle was having valid permit, fitness and insurance; although the driving licence was not renewed, however the insurance company did not produce any evidence supporting their version, the WCC held out that the driving licence was of the year 1997, which is sufficient to prove that the driver was plying vehicles quite long earlier and based upon substantially supported auxiliary evidence, the WCC passed the order dated 24.09.2008 which is impugned in the instant appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat and Ms. Joyce Irwin, Advocates for the claimants/respondent nos. 1 to 4 and perused the record. 4. Mr. Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the insurance company should be exonerated from paying any amount of compensation and interest thereon, as the driver of the offending Truck was not holding a valid and legal driving licence on the date of accident, whilst liability of paying compensation should be fastened upon the owner of the Truck that too for permitting a driver having no legal driving licence to drive his Truck on the date of accident. He contended that on one hand, the owner of the Truck admits that he kept the driver on duty on 22.02.2006 after having seen his driving licence, however the driving licence had been expired much before the date of accident, and in such view of the matter, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay any amount of compensation. He further submits that the WCC has committed manifest error of law in reaching to the conclusion that the insurance company did not produce any evidence, irrespective of the availability of Form-54, issued under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which is sufficient proof, and without being challenged its sanctity or prove otherwise the same should have been relied upon in its entirety and based on such findings, the judgment of the WCC is liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that driving licence remains valid only for 30 days from the date the driving licence expires, as such the deceased was not having a valid driving licence on the date of accident. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that driving licence remains valid only for 30 days from the date the driving licence expires, as such the deceased was not having a valid driving licence on the date of accident. Coupled with the fact that the owner of the Truck permitted a driver having no valid driving licence to drive a vehicle on the date of appointment and the accident as well, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the awarded compensation. He further submitted that the deceased cannot be said to be ‘workman’ of the owner on the Truck in existence of the averments made in the written statement by the owner in which he has asserted that the deceased was a daily wager appointed on payment of Rs. 60/- per day. He submitted that the claimants cannot be said to be the dependants of the deceased. He contends that the WCC has awarded compensation on higher income. He contended that the WCC has committed error of law in not taking into account the fact that until and unless the driving licence is produced, no presumption can be drawn that the driver was having a valid driving licence on the date of accident. Learned counsel for the appellant by relying on the judgment of Apex Court, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 136 , (2008) 17 SCC 208 , AIR 2007 SC 1445 and 2008 AIR SCW 6512 submitted that since the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle expired much before the accident, the appellant cannot be asked to pay compensation to the claimants and recover from the owner. Liability of making payment, if any, is of the owner of the vehicle. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents rescinded the entire submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the finding of the WCC is based upon the evidence on record, as the claimants have amply proved their claim petition before the WCC by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence, which is cogent and unshaken, however the appellant has failed to produce any evidence in any form. He submitted that instant appeal is not maintainable on account of finding of fact is based on evidence on record. Learned counsel for respondents referred Ishwar Chandra and Others vs. Oriental Insurance Co. He submitted that instant appeal is not maintainable on account of finding of fact is based on evidence on record. Learned counsel for respondents referred Ishwar Chandra and Others vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2007 SC 1445 ; The New India Insurance Co. vs. Darshana Devi and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 416 and Sardari & Others vs. Sushil Kumar and Others, 2008 (3) SCALE 570 and submitted that there is no illegality in the order of WCC in fixing liability on the owner of the vehicle through the appellant. 6. It is not disputed that at the time of accident, deceased Baldeo Singh was driving vehicle no. UP 08-0744. It is admitted to the respondent no.5 (owner of the vehicle) that late Baldeo Singh was his driver. The respondent no.5 also admitted in his written statement that on the day of accident, late Baldeo Singh was in his employment on daily wage basis. The claimants in their claim pleaded that late Baldeo Singh was employed by the owner on Rs. 5,000/- monthly salary. Respondent no.5 denied this fact in his written statement as well as in his oral statement and submitted that late Baldeo Singh was employed on daily wage basis on Rs. 60/- per day. Smt. Prema Devi, mother of late Baldeo Singh, in her oral statement stated that her son had told her that his salary was Rs. 5,000/- per month. Neither any document in support of salary of late Baldeo Singh was filed by the claimants nor respondent no.5 filed any documentary evidence that Baldeo Singh was being paid Rs. 60/- per day. The learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner on the basis of notification issued by the Uttarakhand Government regarding minimum wage of the driver held the salary of deceased Baldeo Singh as Rs. 3,215/- per month. The respondent no. 5, being employer, could have produced the document in support of his contention that late Baldeo Singh was being paid Rs. 60/- per day. Respondent no. 5, in his oral statement admitted the fact that he used to pay Rs. 3,000/- to permanent driver. He also stated that before coming to him, late Baldeo Singh was driving the Gas Vehicle and vehicle of one D.S. Negi. In such circumstances, it cannot be believed that late Baldeo Singh was driving the vehicle of respondent no. 5 on daily wage basis. 3,000/- to permanent driver. He also stated that before coming to him, late Baldeo Singh was driving the Gas Vehicle and vehicle of one D.S. Negi. In such circumstances, it cannot be believed that late Baldeo Singh was driving the vehicle of respondent no. 5 on daily wage basis. The learned WCC rightly concluded the salary of late Baldeo Singh as Rs. 3,215/- per month. By relying on the postmortem report, the learned WCC found the age of deceased as 28 years. On the basis of all these set of facts the WCC determined the compensation at Rs. 3,40,452/-. The findings recorded by the learned WCC regarding age and salary of late Baldeo Singh does not require any interference. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that late Baldeo Singh was not a workman as defined under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, has no force and is rejected. It is also to be noted that inspite of sufficient service, none appeared for respondent no.5. Respondent no.5 has also not filed any appeal challenging the award. 7. The main argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant Insurance Company cannot be directed to pay the amount of compensation when the vehicle was being driven by a driver not having a valid and legal driving licence on the date of accident. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments has discussed the issues regarding liability in the cases where at the time of accident driver of vehicle was not having valid driving licence. In many cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while fastening the liability on the owner of vehicle, directed the Insurance Company to pay to the claimant the awarded amount with liberty to it to recover the same from the owner. Relevant paragraphs of few judgments, which have been cited by the learned counsel for the parties, are being quoted in subsequent paragraphs. (i) Ram Babu Tiwari vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, 2008 AIR SCW 6512 “18. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that only in the event an application for renewal of licence is filed within a period 30 days from the date of expiry thereof, the same would be renewed automatically which means that even if an accident had taken place within the aforementioned period, the driver may he held to be possessing a valid licence. The proviso appended to sub-section (1) of Section 15, however, clearly states that the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal in the event the application for renewal of a licence is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry. It is, therefore, evident that as, on renewal of the licence on such terms, the driver of the vehicle cannot be said to be holding a valid licence, the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured. The second proviso appended to sub-section (4) of Section 15 is of no assistance to the appellant. It merely enables the licensing authority to take a further test of competent driving and passing thereof to its satisfaction within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 9. It does not say that the renewal would be automatic. It is, therefore, a case where a breach of the contract of insurance is established. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai & Others, (2006) 4 SCC 250 , holding:- “11. It has not been disputed before us that the vehicle was being used as a taxi. It was, therefore, a commercial vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle, thus, was required to hold an appropriate licence therefor. Ram Lal who allegedly was driving the said vehicle at the relevant time, as noticed hereinbefore, was holder of a licence to drive a light motor vehicle only. He did not possess any licence to drive a commercial vehicle. Evidently, therefore, there was a breach of condition of the contract of insurance. The appellant, therefore, could raise the said defence.” It was furthermore held: “14. This Court in Swaran Singh clearly laid down that the liability of the Insurance Company vis-a-vis the owner would depend upon several factors. The owner would be liable for payment of compensation in a case where the driver was not having a licence at all. It was the obligation on the part of the owner to take adequate care to see that the driver had an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle.” It was opined: “16. The owner would be liable for payment of compensation in a case where the driver was not having a licence at all. It was the obligation on the part of the owner to take adequate care to see that the driver had an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle.” It was opined: “16. In a case of this nature, therefore, the owner of a vehicle cannot contend that he has no liability to verify the fact as to whether the driver of the vehicle possessed a valid licence or not.” (ii) Bhuwan Singh vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Another, (2009) 5 SCC 136 “23. The question as to whether the appellant was holding a valid licence or not was within his knowledge. The driver was to show that he held licence in respect of the vehicle for which he had filed an application. Filing of an application and grant thereof would therefore are prerequisite for holding a valid and effective licence. As on 05.01.2001, the appellant was not duly licensed as his learner’s licence expired on 22.12.2000. He filed an application for grant of licence much later. The Insurance Company, therefore, in our opinion was not bound to reimburse him in terms of the contract of insurance.” (iii) Sardari and Others vs. Sushil Kumar and Others, (2008) 17 SCC 208 “10. Although, in terms of a contract of insurance, which is in the realm of private law domain having regard to the object for which Sections 147 and 149 of the Act had been enacted, the social justice doctrine as envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution of India has been given due importance. The Act, however, itself provides for the cases where the insurance company can avoid its liability. Avoidance of such liability would largely depend upon violation of the conditions of contract of insurance. Where the breach of conditions of contract is ex facie apparent from the records, the court will not fasten the liability on the insurance company. In certain situations, however, the court while fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle may direct the insurance company to pay to the claimants the awarded amount with liberty to it to recover the same from the owner.” (iv) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kusum Rai and Other, AIR 2006 SC 3440 “19. In certain situations, however, the court while fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle may direct the insurance company to pay to the claimants the awarded amount with liberty to it to recover the same from the owner.” (iv) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kusum Rai and Other, AIR 2006 SC 3440 “19. Thus, although we are of the opinion that the appellant was not liable to pay the claimed amount as the driver was not possessing a valid licence and the High Court was in error in holding otherwise, we decline to interfere with the impugned award, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution but we direct that appellant may recover the amount from the owner in the same manner as was directed in Nanjappaa.” (v) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Brij Mohan and Others, (2007) 7 SCC 56 “13. However, respondent No.1 is a poor labourer. He had suffered grievous injuries. He had become disabled to a great extent. The amount of compensation awarded in his favour appears to be on a lower side. In the aforementioned situation, although we reject the other contentions of Ms. Indu Malhotra, we are inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to direct that the award may be satisfied by the appellant but it would be entitled to realize the same from the owner of the tractor and the trolley wherefore it would not be necessary for it to initiate any separate proceedings for recovery of the amount as provided for under the Motor vehicle Act.” (vi) B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Others, (1995) 6 SCC 749 (B.L. Hansaria, J.) “3. It deserves to be pointed out that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice, and if moulding of relief would do complete justice between the parties, the same cannot be ordered. Absence of provision like Article 142 is not material, according to me. Absence of provision like Article 142 is not material, according to me. This may be illustrated by pointing out that despite there being no provision in the Constitution parallel to Article 137 conferring power of review on the High Court, this Court held as early as 1961 in Shivdeo Singh’s case AIR (1963) SC 1909, that the High Courts too can exercise power of review, which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction. I would say that power to do complete justice also inheres in every Court, not to speak of a Court of plenary jurisdiction like a High Court. Of course, this power is not as wide which this Court has under Article 141. That, however, is a different matter.” 9. In the present case, the accident took place on 23/24 February, 2006. The vehicle involved in the accident was insured from 17.05.2005 to 16.05.2006. Insurance Company produced Form-54. From perusal of Form 54, it was found that driving licence of the driver was renewed upto 13.06.2005. Thus, on the date of accident the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence. Late Baldeo Singh was in the employment of respondent no.5. The learned WCC has rightly held the respondent no.5 (owner of the vehicle) liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. Now, the only thing which has to be seen is whether the WCC was right in fixing liability of payment through Insurance Company. As per record, the deceased Baldeo Singh had a driving licence which was renewed upto 13.06.2005. It is not the case where he did not have any driving licence. Cause of the accident is not known to anybody. It is also not clear from the record that accident took place due to lack of driving shill or due to mechanical fault. Late Baldeo Singh died in the year of 2006. Inspite of the fact that his dependants are entitled for payment of compensation, they could not get the same due to pendency of appeal. Possibilities are there that owner would contest the execution and payment to the claimants would be delayed. In my view, payment should not be delayed further. The appellant can recover the awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle. I find no illegality in the judgments and award dated 24.09.2008 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Tehri Garhwal. The appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. 10. In my view, payment should not be delayed further. The appellant can recover the awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle. I find no illegality in the judgments and award dated 24.09.2008 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Tehri Garhwal. The appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. 10. No order as to costs.