JUDGMENT : Nishitendu Chaudhury, J. 1. In this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Oriental Insurance Company Limited being the insurer has challenged the legality and validity of judgment and order dated 26th December, 2003 passed by learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Guwahati in W.C. Case No.25/2002. One Mst. Jilimun Necha, as claimant, filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation (hereinafter referred to as 'the WC Commissioner') stating that her husband late Kurban Ali was a driver of a Maruti Van bearing registration No. AS 01C-7779 owned by Md. Abdur Rasid Ahmed of Rukmini Gaon. On 1st December, 2001 when Kurban Ali was driving the vehicle for coming towards Khetri from Jorhat, an unknown vehicle dashed against it from behind causing damage to the vehicle and in the process, Kurban Ali sustained grievous injury on his person. Subsequently, he died in M.M.C. Hospital at Panbazar on the same day. Post-mortem was done over his dead body and a police case being Khetri P.S. Case No. 204/2001 under Sections 279/338/304(A)/427 of the IPC was registered. According to the claimant, the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 3,000 per month in addition to Rs. 45 towards daily allowance. He was the only earning member of the family but the owner of the vehicle did not make any payment of compensation owing to his death. The owner opposite party No. 1 did not contest the proceeding. However, opposite party No. 2, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, submitted written statement and contested the proceeding as the vehicle which the victim was driving was covered by a valid policy of the said Insurance Company. The Policy No. 20001/2295 was valid up to 23rd January, 2002 and the accident had taken place on 1st December, 2001. In the written statement the Insurance Company made whole sale denial of the averments made in the claim petition. The age and authority of the driver to drive the vehicle and knowledge of the insurance was also denied by the Insurance Company. There was no specific denial of the fact that the driver was in possession of a valid licence at the time of the accident. 2. The claimant examined herself by adducing a number of documentary evidences like accident information report, certified copy of the FIR, age certificate issued by the Forensic Medicine of Guwahati Medical College and Hospital, post-mortem report, etc. 2. The claimant examined herself by adducing a number of documentary evidences like accident information report, certified copy of the FIR, age certificate issued by the Forensic Medicine of Guwahati Medical College and Hospital, post-mortem report, etc. She stated in her deposition that the deceased was being paid Rs. 3,000 per month by the owner and a sum of Rs. 45 was also paid as daily allowance. She was duly cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company in reply to specific question put to her that her deceased husband was not having valid licence at the time of accident. However, as the claimant could not produce any documentary evidence in support of the income of her husband, the learned WC Commissioner presumed the monthly salary of the deceased to be Rs. 2500 per month and his age was considered to be 30 years. However, the learned WC Commissioner was of the considered opinion that the deceased was engaged driver in vehicle AS 01C-7779 and that he died in a vehicular accident in course of his employment. It was also found that the claimant was dependent wife of the deceased and so she was entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 3. The Insurance Company examined an L.D. Assistant of the Office of the D.T.O. as DW 1 who brought records to show that driving licence No. 2454/97/K was issued by the D.T.O., Kamrup, West Zone to one Kurban Ali and the same was valid up to 28th October, 2000. Thereafter the licence was renewed on 26th December, 2001 extending the validity upto 25th December, 2004 w.e.f. 26th December, 2001. Ext. D is an extract of a register of receipt of licence kept and maintained by the D.T.O., Kamrup. Records do not indicate as to whether the licence of the deceased was seized by police. The Insurance Company did not make any attempt to get the licence of the deceased produced before the WC Commissioner to show that the driving licence of the deceased Kurban Ali was not in force as on the date of accident. On the other hand, an employee of the Office of the D.T.O. was brought and he by referring to his records, said that D.L. No. 2454/97/K was issued to one Kurban Ali. On the other hand, an employee of the Office of the D.T.O. was brought and he by referring to his records, said that D.L. No. 2454/97/K was issued to one Kurban Ali. Particularly, when there is no defence in the written statement in specific term about validity of the driving license of the deceased, there was no scope on the part of the Insurance Company to lead evidence to take defence on the ground of invalidity or absence of licence of the deceased driver. Had the licence of the driver been called for through the WC Commissioner or the same was procured from the police record in that event, the position would have been different. Virtually, there is nothing on record to come to a finding that Kurban Ali referred to by DW 1 is the deceased in the present case. Be that as it may, learned WC Commissioner did not accept the defence raised by the Insurance Company and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,59,975 along with a sum of Rs. 2,000 as funeral cost. It was further ordered that in default in making payment of compensation beyond statutory period of 30 days, the Insurance Company would make payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum. This judgment and order passed on 26th December, 2003 and it has been brought under challenge in the present appeal. 4. This Court by order dated 30th September, 2004 admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the award of compensation against the Insurance Company by holding deceased to be a third party under the insurance policy is correct in law?" 5. I have heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. N. Modi for the appellant. None appears for the opposite parties. 6. Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel would argue that although insurance policy obtained by the owner of the vehicle was valid at the relevant time of accident but driver of the vehicle cannot be said to be a third party and so the Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of the compensation at all. 7. I have perused the impugned judgment and award. It appears that the defence raised by the Insurance Company in regard to validity of licence received due consideration of the WC Commissioner. 7. I have perused the impugned judgment and award. It appears that the defence raised by the Insurance Company in regard to validity of licence received due consideration of the WC Commissioner. The WC Commissioner found that accident having occurred on 1st December, 2001, there was no valid driving licence on that date and so Insurance Company succeeded in establishing the fact that vehicle was driven by an invalid person. However, Insurance Company was directed to make payment with liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. 8. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and award it appears that the WC Commissioner directed the Insurance Company to make payment of the compensation amount only to give benefit to the workman. At the same time, Insurance Company was given liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle in view of the fact that the owner did not take due care and caution to see that vehicle was run by a driver with a valid licence at the relevant time. In that view of the matter, there was no award of the compensation in regard to liability. Having so found, it is to be held that the substantial question of law framed by this Court at the time of admission does not arise under the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.