JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - Under challenge is the judgment and award dated 3.10.2018 passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner holding owner of Truck No. RJ-14-GB-0721 and the appellant - Insurance Co. which had insured the said truck liable for compensation to the LRs of Sita Ram, deceased driver of the insured vehicle involved in an accident. 2. The first proviso to section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereafter referred to 'the Act of 1923') inter-alia provides that no appeal shall lie against any judgment passed under the Act of 1923 unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. 3. The only substantial question of law agitated in the course of hearing of this appeal by Mr. Virendra Agarwal was that when both claimants and insured failed to produce before the Commissioner the driving license of the deceased Sita Ram who was driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident, it amounted to willful breach of fundamental terms and conditions of insurance policy - in cross hair of section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act of 1988) , for reason of which no liability could be fastened on the Insurance Co. And in so yet doing the Commissioner has committed a gross perversity and patent illegality. 4. Issue no.3 struck before the Commissioner was as under: amr ^ ^ wfrrn fteFf ' c tt w wm #m? 5. Heard. Considered. 6. The failure of the claimant and the owner of the insured vehicle to produce the driving license of the deceased Sita Ram who was driving the insured vehicle at the time of the accident is subsumed in issue no.3. 7. And indeed the defence of the appellant - Insurance Co. in respect of issue no.3 was largely with regard to the deceased Sita Ram, the driver of the insured vehicle at the time of accident allegedly not having a valid driving license. But it is no more res-integra that the burden to prove / establish the defence set up by the appellant - Insurance Co. with regard to the driver of the insured vehicle not having a valid driving license at the time of accident was on it to discharge. In this context, the Employees Compensation Commissioner has held that nothing from the evidence of the Insurance Co. with regard to the driver of the insured vehicle not having a valid driving license at the time of accident was on it to discharge. In this context, the Employees Compensation Commissioner has held that nothing from the evidence of the Insurance Co. established that any investigation with regard to deceased Sita Ram not having a valid driving license at the time of accident was made nor any witness from the Transport Department, within whose jurisdiction the deceased Sita Ram resided produced to prove that the deceased Sita Ram did not have a valid driving license. In coming to his conclusion that the defence of the appellant Insurance Co. seeking to escape its liability on the ground that deceased Sita Ram did not have a valid driving license at the time of accident was unsustainable, the Commissioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shrawan Singh and others - 2004 (1) TAC 321 SC . 8. Besides, In N.V. Kamat vs. AAD Martin (AIR 1983 SC 1281) , the plea of the Insurance Company was that there was breach of term of the policy as the driver of the insured vehicle at the time of accident did not have a valid driving license. That plea was negatived by the court as the Insurance Co. did not produce any evidence to prove the alleged breach of its policy conditions and it was held that the Insurance Co. was liabile to pay the compensation as its unsubstantiated defence was no succour. In Suresh Mohan Chopra vs. Lakhi Prabhu Dayal and Others ( AIR 1990 SC 1979 ) , the Apex Court held that the burden was on the Insurance Co., alleging that the driver of the insured vehicle had no license at the time of accident - to prove such allegation. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others vs. Ramanand and others ( 1992 (2) WLC 344 ) , relying on the judgment in the case of N.V. Kamat (supra), it was held by this Court that the burden, to prove that the driver driving the vehicle at the time of the accident of the insured vehicle did not have a valid driving license, was on the Insurance Co. and where it failed to so discharge its burden, its liability under the contract of insurance remained intact, and it was bound to satisfy the award for injury / death suffered by the employee, under the policy of insurance. In Rukmani vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others { 1998 (9) SCC 160 } , the Apex Court held that the burden was on the Insurance Company alleging that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving license to establish the allegation. 9. I am of the considered view that in the facts of the case, the purported substantial question of law agitated is not made out. The obtaining legal position dictates this ineluctable conclusion. No other substantial question of law has been agitated in the course of arguments. 10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 11. The appellant Insurance Co. shall however be free to take its remedies, if any, against the owner of the insured vehicle for breach of his obligation under Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.