JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal arises out of award dated 23.01.2001 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Sri Ganganagar ('Commissioner'), whereby, the claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs. 2,24,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% and no penalty has been imposed for the death of one Amar Singh. 2. The facts in brief are that the claimants filed the present claim petition, inter alia, with the averments that deceased Amar Singh was employed on the Truck No.RJ13-G-2966 as driver and when on 05.05.1996 he was driving the vehicle, the vehicle met with an accident and Amar Singh suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries on the same day, the deceased used to earn Rs. 2,000/- per month and was aged 20 years. 3. The application was opposed by the owner respondent No.1 by indicating that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the amount of compensation. 4. The respondent No. 2 - appellant Insurance Company filed its reply and denied all the averments made in this regard. It was claimed that deceased Amar Singh had no valid and effective driving licence and the owner of the vehicle despite being aware of this deficiency permitted the driver to drive the vehicle, which is a violation of policy conditions; it was alleged that deceased himself was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the amount of Compensation. 5. After the parties led their evidence, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the accident occurred during the course of and out of the employment. The finding regarding the driving licence was negated on account of the fact that the claim for damage of vehicle filed by the owner of the vehicle was decided in favour of the owner by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ('Commission') and the appellant Insurance Company had raised some objection therein, which objection was rejected and the appellant Insurance Company has accepted the said judgment of the Commission. The law cited by the appellant Insurance Company was held to be not applicable. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there was no proof of the master and servant relationship between the deceased and the owner-insured. Further, the deceased was not in possession of a valid driving licence and, therefore, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. 7. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there was no proof of the master and servant relationship between the deceased and the owner-insured. Further, the deceased was not in possession of a valid driving licence and, therefore, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and it was submitted that the Insurance Company having accepted the judgment of the Commission now is estopped from challenging the award passed by the Commissioner. It was further submitted that in view of the settled legal position, it cannot be said that the driver was not in possession of a valid driving licence and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 9. So far as the issue relating to absence of employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the owner insured of the vehicle is concerned, the relationship was not specifically disputed by the appellant Insurance Company in reply to the claim petition. Further, the fact that deceased was driving the insured vehicle is not in dispute and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle. So far as the issue relating to the holding of valid driving licence by the deceased driver is concerned and the allegations regarding violation of policy condition is concerned, it is admitted that the deceased was in possession of driving licence for driving light motor vehicle and the said issue about not holding the valid driving licence was raised by the appellant Insurance Company before the Commission, which negated the said argument and the same has been accepted by the appellant Insurance Company and, therefore, now qua the same accident and the same owner, the appellant Insurance Company is estopped from questioning the said finding. 10. Even otherwise, the issue is no more res integra and the same is covered by the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. 10. Even otherwise, the issue is no more res integra and the same is covered by the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 620 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors., 2008 AIR SCW 906 .In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the present appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******