JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal stands directed, against, the award pronounced, by, the learned Commissioner (IV), Shimla exercising Power under Employee''s Compensation Act, 1923, upon, case No. RBT 14/2 of 11/2010, whereunder, compensation amount borne in a sum of Rs.4,50,4400/- along with interest @12% per annum from 3.6.2010 till its realization, stood assessed, vis-a-vis, the legal representatives of the deceased driver. 2. The instant appeal was admitted, on, 15.10.2013, yet thereat, no, statutorily enjoined substantial question, of, law, stood, framed. However, during the course, of, hearing of the instant appeal, hence, upon hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court, has, framed the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law, for meteing, of, an adjudication thereon:- "1. Whether the indemnification of the claim by insurer could be ordered when deceased-driver was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the insured vehicle (Pick-up vehicle) and thereby, breach of the policy conditions as regards the driver''s clause was committed by the owner/insured? 2. Whether interest for period from 3.6.2010 till 18.01.2013 could be ordered to be paid to claimant by the appellant/insurer when the compensation amount due and payable to claimants was determined by the ld. Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 19.01.2013, when the claim petition was decided?" 3. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting litigants, do not wrangle, over the factum of the demise, of, the deceased, occurring the during the course of his performing his employment under his employer. However, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer has contended with much vigour before this Court, that, with the licence held by the deceased driver, at the stage, contemporaneous to the occurrence ill-fated mishap, rather being proven by RW-4 to be fake, and, unauthentic, (i) thereupon, the computation of compensation assessed qua his legal heirs, being ingrained with, a, grave legal fallacy. However, the afore contention addressed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer, cannot merit any countenancing by this Court, (ii) given this Court in a case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Seema Devi and others reported in , (2006) ACJ 1357, the relevant paragraphs No. 22, 25, 26, 27 and 28 stand extracted hereinafter:- "22. The W.C. Act does not deal with the question raised in the present appeal. Ltd. vs. Seema Devi and others reported in , (2006) ACJ 1357, the relevant paragraphs No. 22, 25, 26, 27 and 28 stand extracted hereinafter:- "22. The W.C. Act does not deal with the question raised in the present appeal. There is nothing in the Act to show whether an employer is liable in case the employee has taken employment on the basis of a forged or fake document, like the driving licence in the present case. The employer when he gave the employment had no reason to believe that the licence produced before him was a fake one. The contention raised on behalf of the insurance company is that no person can derive benefit from his own fraudulent act. The driver of the vehicle obtained the employment on the basis of the fake licence. This violates the provisions of the law, especially Motor Vehicles Act. It is a criminal offence. 25. In my opinion, the insurance company can raise all defences available to it in claims under the W.C. Act. It cannot be argued that insurance company is restricted to raise only those defences available to it under Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, it can raise question whether the employee had a licence or not. However, the insurance company has agreed to indemnify the employer for his liability under the W.C. Act and if the employer is liable then the insurance company has to be held liable unless it can show that there has been breach of the policy on behalf of the insured. This view is in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh . Though that was a case under the Motor Vehicles Act, the general principle of law laid down is that it is for the insurer to prove that the insured has breached the policy. 26. Taking a cue from Section 3 quoted supra it is my considered view that when an employee dies or suffers permanent total disablement in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, then the fact that such employee had obtained employment on the basis of false qualification would not be a defence open to the employer and consequently the insurance company. However, in case the employee only suffers injury which does not disable him permanently, then the employer can take up a defence that the employee has obtained employment on the basis of false qualifications and, therefore, wilfully disregarded the law and in such an eventuality the employer and the insurance company may not be liable. This is in consonance with the intention of the legislature that when a person dies or suffers permanent disablement then it is not only he who suffers, but his dependants suffer with him. In the case of other injuries the employee alone suffers and, therefore, he has not been given the benefit. The intention appears to be that the dependants of the employee should not be denied compensation. 27. In the present case, there is nothing to show that the employer knew that the licence in question was fake. Ostensibly on the face of it, the driving licence appears to be valid. When the owner of a vehicle employs a driver he is only expected to see the driving licence. He is not expected to go to the registration and licensing authority to verify the genuineness of the licence. In the present case also, there is no breach on the part of the owner. No doubt, it is true that in the present case the deceased himself endangered his safety and life by inviting unnecessary calamity by engaging in driving of vehicles when he knew that he did not have a valid driving licence. In view of the provisions of proviso (b) to Section 3(1) of the Act, when a workman dies or is permanently disabled then even if it is proved that he acted recklessly or endangered his life by illegal means would, in my humble opinion, not be a defence open to the employer and consequently the insurance company. In case the employee only receives injuries, this would be a valid defence. 28. In view of the above discussion, I answer the two substantial questions of law raised herein as follows: (1) The insurance company has proved on record that the driving licence issued in favour of driver Gurnam Singh, was a fake driving licence. In case the employee only receives injuries, this would be a valid defence. 28. In view of the above discussion, I answer the two substantial questions of law raised herein as follows: (1) The insurance company has proved on record that the driving licence issued in favour of driver Gurnam Singh, was a fake driving licence. (2) The employer and consequently the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the dependants of the deceased, even if it is proved that the driver had a fake driving licence." (i) making a clear expostulation of law, that, in proceedings drawn under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, it being not open, for the insurer, to raise any contention qua with the deceased driver obtaining his employment, under, his employer under a fake and unauthentic driving lience, (ii) thereupon, his or his legal heirs being barred to strive, for, begetting quantification of compensation, by drawing proceedings under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, (iii) rather its stand forthrightly expostulated therein, that, the insurer being amenable, to liquidate the compensation amount, vis-a-vis, the insured employer. Further it has also been propounded therein, only, upon within the ambit, of, the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh , (2004) ACJ 1 (SC), (a) it stands proven by the insurer, that, the employer had willfully neglected or breached the standards of due care and caution, at the time of his engaging the deceased driver, (b) negligence whereof being comprised in his failing to, ascertain the competence, proficiency, and, driving skills of the deceased driver,(c) thereupon, it not being open for the insurer to exculpate its indemnificatory liability, sparked by the contract of insurance executed by it, vis-a-vis, the insured. Since, the afore evidence stands unadduced by the insurer, and, also when evidence stands adduced qua the demise, of the deceased concerned, rather occurring during the course, of, his performing, his employment under his employer, thereupon, the fastening of the apt indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer by the learned Commissioner, is to be concluded, to be legally apt. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer has further contended that liability of interest, upon, the principal compensation amount by the learned Commissioner, is inapt, given it being not fastenable upon it. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer has further contended that liability of interest, upon, the principal compensation amount by the learned Commissioner, is inapt, given it being not fastenable upon it. However, the afore submission is rudderless, given a perusal of the insurance policy, disclosing qua it not carrying any explicit exclusionary clause, qua the liability, of, interest accruable, upon, the principal amount, being fastenable upon it. Consequently, the levying of interest on the principal compensation amount, under, the impugned award, from, one month elapsing since the occurrence, of the ill-fated mishap, upto its deposit, does not suffer from any legal frailty. Consequently, both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the claimants/respondents, and, against the appellant/insurer. 5. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the award impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.