Judgment : Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) C.M. No.2207/2014 (condonation of delay) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of one day in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No.2208/2014 (condonation of delay) 2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 42 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. + FAO No. 41/2014 and C.M. No.2206/2014 (stay) 3. This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the insurance company, which was respondent no.3 before the Commissioner. Respondent no.3 was originally proceeded exparte. Thereafter it appeared through authorized representative but once again on 8.6.2011 it was proceeded exparte. These aspects are noted in paras 2 and 4 of the impugned judgment. I may note that since the appellant-insurance company was proceeded exparte, no evidence was led on behalf of the appellant-insurance company. 4. The facts of the case are that the applicants/respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein filed the claim petition before the Commissioner on the ground that the deceased Sh. Ram Parkash Mishra, husband of the applicant No.1/respondent no.1 herein and father of other applicants/respondent nos.2 to 6 herein, was employed with the transport company respondent no.7 herein (respondent no.1 before the Commissioner) as Supervisor since May, 2006. The deceased Sh. Ram Parkash Mishra also used to be sent sometimes on emergency duty for driving of the vehicle of the respondent no.7 herein. On 5.1.2007, at about 12.30 night the respondent no.7 herein directed the deceased Sh. Ram Parkash Mishra to drive the vehicle as there was no other driver. The vehicle in question met with an accident leading to the death of Sh. Ram Parkash Mishra. Hence the claim petition. 5. Respondent no.7/employer did not appear before the Commissioner and was proceeded exparte. As already stated above, even the appellant herein, respondent no.3 before the Commissioner was proceeded exparte. The applicants before the Commissioner led their evidence by filing of affidavit by way of evidence and duly proved on record the documents being ration card, photographs of accident site, duty card of the deceased, cheque receipt showing mode of payment of salary and other related documents as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/9. The Commissioner thereafter applying the applicable formula under the Act has granted compensation as also interest under Section 4A of the Act. 6. The Commissioner thereafter applying the applicable formula under the Act has granted compensation as also interest under Section 4A of the Act. 6. Before me, counsel for the appellant argued that since the deceased was employed as a Supervisor and not as a driver there would be no liability of the appellant-insurance company and liability of the appellant-insurance company is only if the deceased was regularly employed as a driver. It is argued that in the impugned judgment there is no discussion by the Commissioner of the deceased being an employee under the Act and consequently the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside because the aforesaid aspects which are urged before this Court raise a substantial question of law. 7. In my opinion, the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant are grossly misconceived. Firstly, it is necessary that if a person wants to challenge a judgment on merits such a person namely the appellant-insurance company must enter appearance, file its pleadings and substantiate the case contained in its pleadings by leading of evidence. Nothing of all that has been done and therefore in my opinion the present appeal is an appeal in futility. Also, the contention that a person must be a regularly employed driver, and since the deceased was employed as a Supervisor but was asked to drive, and therefore the appellant-insurance company is not liable, is once again an argument wholly without any merit because it is not the case of the appellant-insurance company before the Commissioner, and also not before this Court, that the deceased while driving the vehicle was doing so without any driving licence. Once a person has driving licence, surely, he is entitled to drive and it is no where provided in the Act that the person must be employed as a driver only for the entire month and thereafter only such a person who drives the vehicle will be called as driver. In my opinion, an employee who has a driving licence and drives the vehicle falls within the meaning of the expression ‘driver’ as found under Section 2(dd)(ii)(c) of the Act. 8. In my opinion, an employee who has a driving licence and drives the vehicle falls within the meaning of the expression ‘driver’ as found under Section 2(dd)(ii)(c) of the Act. 8. The argument urged on behalf of the appellant that the Commissioner has not discussed the aspect that the deceased was or was not an employee covered under the Act is a misconceived argument because I fail to understand how an insurance company who does not even choose to appear before the Commissioner, file pleadings and substantiate its case, can take up such an argument in an appeal although there is no basis for the same as laid out before the Commissioner. In any case, I have already held that the deceased was an employee under Section 2(dd)(ii)(c). 9. It is high time that insurance companies realize that instituting frivolous appeals are wastage of judicial time and more so in the facts of present case where the appellant-insurance company did not even appear before the Commissioner and was proceeded exparte. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is accordingly dismissed, with costs of Rs.15,000/-, and which costs shall be paid to the Advocates Welfare Fund within six weeks from today. On deposit of the costs to the Advocates Welfare Fund, an affidavit will be filed on behalf of the appellant in the Court that needful has been done, failing which Registry will list the matter in Court thereafter.