JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company has assailed Award dated 16.05.2012, passed by learned Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu, H.P. in Case No. 11 of 2007, titled as Smt. Bhawani Vs. Sh. Sanjay Kumar and another, vide which, an application filed under Section 22 of the Employee's Compensation Act was allowed by the learned Commissioner in the following terms: ?25. In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, the application is allowed and compensation of Rs.3,20,355/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date it becomes due till payment is awarded in favour of the applicant from the respondent No. 2. The applicant is also entitled to penalty to the extent of 50% on the amount of compensation from the respondent No. 1, the employer of the deceased. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount within sixty days from today.? 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that an application was filed under Section 22 of the Employee's Compensation Act by Smt. Bhawani, wife of late Shri Krishan Negi for grant of compensation, inter alia, on the grounds that deceased Krishan Negi, husband of the claimant, was engaged as a Driver by Shri Sanjay Kumar (respondent No. 1 before the learned Commissioner) to ply vehicle No. HP-01A-1185. In the course of said employment of his, deceased lost his life on 24.08.2007 in an accident which took place at Khyog Nallah near Saroha, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P. At the time when the accident took place, the vehicle was being driven by the deceased. It was the case of the claimant that at the time of his death, monthly wages of the deceased were Rs.4000/- and in addition, he was also being paid Rs.50/- daily diet money. The deceased was 24 years old at the time of his death. The employer was duly sent a notice. The factum of the accident as also the death of the deceased workman was in the knowledge of the employer. The vehicle was insured by the employer with the Insurance Company-appellant (respondent No. 2 before the learned Commissioner). Employer had also carried out the insurance of the deceased under the Employee's Compensation Act with the Insurance Company. As employer had failed to indemnify the claimant, hence the claim petition was filed. 3. The vehicle was insured by the employer with the Insurance Company-appellant (respondent No. 2 before the learned Commissioner). Employer had also carried out the insurance of the deceased under the Employee's Compensation Act with the Insurance Company. As employer had failed to indemnify the claimant, hence the claim petition was filed. 3. The claim was resisted by the respondents. Employer though admitted that deceased Krishan Negi was his employee and was engaged as a Driver to ply the vehicle in issue, who died on 24.08.2007 while driving the said vehicle, however, as per him, monthly wages of the deceased Driver were Rs.3000/- per month and not Rs.4000/- as alleged by the claimant. It was further the case of the employer that as the vehicle in issue was fully insured with the Insurance Company, therefore, liability to pay compensation, if any, was that of the Insurance Company. 4. Insurance Company vide separate reply resisted the claim, inter alia, on the ground that there was gross violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The factum of the deceased being paid an amount of Rs.4000/- as monthly wages and Rs.50/- as daily diet money was also denied. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Commissioner framed the following issues: ?1. Whether the deceased was a workman within the meaning of workmen's compensation Act? OPP 2. Whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the petitioner is legal heir/dependent of deceased? OPR-2 5. Whether the deceased was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-2 6. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-2 7. Whether the respondent No. 1 is guilty of gross violation of Insurance Policy terms and conditions? OPR-2 8. Whether notice under Section 10 of the workmen compensation Act was given? OPR-2 9. Relief.? 6. On the basis of evidence which was led on record by the parties, the issues so framed were answered as under: "Issue No. 1 Yes. Issue No. 2 Yes. Issue No. 3 Yes. OPR-2 8. Whether notice under Section 10 of the workmen compensation Act was given? OPR-2 9. Relief.? 6. On the basis of evidence which was led on record by the parties, the issues so framed were answered as under: "Issue No. 1 Yes. Issue No. 2 Yes. Issue No. 3 Yes. Issue No. 4 No. Issue No. 5 No. Issue No. 6 No. Issue No. 7 No. Issue No. 8 No. Relief The application is allowed per operative portion of the judgment." Relief The application is allowed per operative portion of the judgment." 7. The claim petition was accordingly allowed by the learned Commissioner by awarding an amount of Rs.3,20,355/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date it became due till its payment. Claimant was also held entitled to penalty to the extent of 50% on the amount of compensation from respondent No. 1,i.e., the employer of the deceased. 8. The Award so passed by the learned Commissioner has been challenged by way of this appeal by the Insurance Company. The same does not stands assailed by the employer. This appeal was admitted on 13.09.2012 on the following substantial question of law:- ?Whether the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured and the renewal of the driving licence wold assume the character of a valid driving licence when its original was fake? 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Award passed by the learned Commissioner per se is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the findings which stand returned by the learned Commissioner while answering Issue No. 5 are contrary to the record. By referring to the documents produced on record by the appellant, learned counsel has argued that as it was writ large on the face of the record of the case that the driving licence of the deceased, as it existed before its renewal in the year 2006, was a fake licence, the liability to pay compensation could not have been shifted upon the Insurance Company, because in view of breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the insurer was not bound to indemnify the insured. 10. No other point was urged. 11. 10. No other point was urged. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have argued that there is no infirmity in the Award passed by the learned Commissioner, as the findings which have been returned while deciding Issue No. 5, are clearly borne out from the record of the case. They submit that it is a matter of record that deceased was in the profession of driving for the last so many years and was an efficient Driver. They further submit that it is also a matter of record that as on the date when the unfortunate accident took place, the vehicle in issue was duly insured with the Insurance Company and deceased Krishan Negi was having a valid driving licence to drive the kind of vehicle, which was involved in the accident and said licence of his was valid from 12.06.2006 to 11.06.2009. They further argued that it is not the case of the appellant-Company that it is intra these dates that the licence of the deceased being relied upon was found to be a fake licence. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the Award under challenge as well as the record of the case. 13. A perusal of the record of the case demonstrates that Issue No. 5 which stood framed by the learned Commissioner was whether the deceased was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? It is borne out from the record that as on the date when the accident took place, i.e., 24.08.2007, there was a driving licence being possessed by the deceased. It has not been disputed that in terms of the driving licence, which was valid from 12.06.2006 to 11.06.2009, the deceased was authorized to drive the vehicle which was involved in the accident. Now, in this background, what this Court has to see is as to whether the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the Award is liable to be set aside on the ground that there was material on record to demonstrate that before its renewal, the licence was a fake licence is sustainable or not. 14. I repeat that the date of accident is 24.08.2007. The validity of the licence which stood issued in favour of the deceased as on the date when the accident took place was from 12.06.2006 to 11.06.2009. 14. I repeat that the date of accident is 24.08.2007. The validity of the licence which stood issued in favour of the deceased as on the date when the accident took place was from 12.06.2006 to 11.06.2009. In my considered view, while answering the substantial question of law, which has been framed, what this Court has to see is as to whether there was any express and willful breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy on the part of the insured or not. The Insurance Policy is on record as Ex. D-2. The same was valid from 10.04.2007 to 09.04.2008. Now the Driver who was plying the vehicle and who unfortunately lost his life in the accident was possessing a licence 15. Had Insurance Company placed on record any material to demonstrate that despite having any knowledge of the fact that the driver was not having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle, which stood handed over by the owner to the driver, then but obvious, the Commissioner could not have fastened the liability to indemnify the insured upon the Insurance Company. However, this is not so in the present case. There is no evidence on record that owner was having the knowledge that licence of the driver was a fake licence. Besides, a perusal of the cross-examination of the owner of the vehicle by the insurer demonstrates that no such suggestion was put to the owner of the vehicle that he was aware of the fact that either the driver was in possession of a fake driving licence which was subsequently got renewed or that on the date when the accident took place, he was having knowledge of the fact that the driver was not having a valid driving licence. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Rajaram and others, (2018) 8 Supreme Court Cases 799 has held that if the owner was aware of the fact that the licence was fake and still permitted the driver to drive the vehicle, then the insurer would stand absolved. However, the mere fact that the driving licence is fake, per se, would not absolve the insurer. 17. Rajaram and others, (2018) 8 Supreme Court Cases 799 has held that if the owner was aware of the fact that the licence was fake and still permitted the driver to drive the vehicle, then the insurer would stand absolved. However, the mere fact that the driving licence is fake, per se, would not absolve the insurer. 17. In view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that even if it is to be assumed that the licence being possessed by the driver was initially a fake licence, yet till the Insurance Company proved in the Court that this fact was in the knowledge of the owner, who despite being aware of said fact that the licence being possessed by the driver was a fake licence, permitted the driver to drive the vehicle, it could not be absolved of its liability. As there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the owner of the vehicle in the present case at any stage was aware of the fact that the licence being held by the driver was initially a fake licence, it cannot be said that the learned Commissioner has erred in fastening the liability to indemnify the insured upon the insurer. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 18. Accordingly, as this Court finds no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.