JUDGMENT : 1. Present appellant, being original opponent no.2 in W.C. (F) Case No.32 of 2006 before the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Junagadh, has challenged the judgment and award passed in aforesaid case dated 12.04.2007 by preferring this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The short facts of the present case are as under: 2.1 As per the averments of the applicants in their petition before the learned Commissioner, the deceased-Bhikhubhai Abubhai was serving as driver with the opponent no.1 since last two years and was getting salary and allowances of Rs.4000/- per month. That, he was a driver of rickshaw, bearing registration No.GJ-1-XX-3124. That, there was relationship of the deceased with opponent no.1 as employee and employer. That, the insurance of the rickshaw, owned by the opponent no.1, was insured with the opponent no.2. That, on 30.03.2006, the deceased-Bhikhubhai was on duty, at about 10.30 a.m. in the morning, he was coming from Dolatpura – Junagadh railway station, at that time, just opposite to Majevdi Police Chawki, rickshaw, bearing registration no.GJ-1-XX-3124, driven by the deceased, suddenly, accelerate of the rickshaw was broken down, and therefore, the rickshaw dashed with the dumper passing through the road and accident was occurred. The deceased sustained grievous injuries on account of this accident, and therefore, admitted in the civil hospital, Junagadh. On account of grievous injuries sustained by the deceased, he died in the civil hospital. As per further averments made in the petition, the age of the deceased was 40 years, post morterm was performed in the civil hospital Junagadh, Panchnama of the scene of offence was drawn as well as inquest panchnama. Police complaint was lodged before the Majevdi Police Station which was registered vide C.R. No.120 of 2006. That, the information of the accident was forwarded to the opponent no.1 however, no compensation was paid by the opponent no.1 under the Act. That, notice was also issued to the opponent no.1 on 09.06.2006 requesting to pay the compensation but, no response was received by the applicants/claimants. That, considering the age of the deceased at 40 years and income of Rs.4000/- per month, as per their prayer, opponents were responsible to pay an amount of compensation of Rs.3,65,340/- jointly or severally. That, notice was also issued to the opponent no.1 on 09.06.2006 requesting to pay the compensation but, no response was received by the applicants/claimants. That, considering the age of the deceased at 40 years and income of Rs.4000/- per month, as per their prayer, opponents were responsible to pay an amount of compensation of Rs.3,65,340/- jointly or severally. That, opponent no.1 was also responsible to pay the amount of penalty at 50% under the Act and hence, applicants have requested to pass an award in their favour for the amount as prayed for. 2.2 That, notice was duly served to the opponent no.1. That, the opponent no.1 filed written statement vide Exh.50 denying the contentions of the applicants. It was submitted that the motor vehicle rickshaw was insured with the opponent no.2- insurance company. That, the relationship of the servant and owner, details of the accident, injuries sustained by the deceased, salary of Rs.4000/- per month, age of the deceased as 40 years, were not admitted by this opponent and requested to dismiss the petition. 2.3 That, opponent no.2 appeared through its advocate and filed written statement vide Exh.12 contending that the claim petition was not legal and valid. That, no insurance of the motor vehicle rickshaw, bearing registration no. GJ-1-XX- 3124, was available with this opponent. That, no effective and valid driving license was available with the deceased at the time of accident, and therefore, no liability of compensation can be held against this opponent. That, opponent no.1 has clearly breached the conditions of the policy, and therefore, this opponent would not be liable to pay the compensation. That, in case of transport vehicle which was driven by the deceased, necessary badge issued by the Competent Officer to drive the vehicle must be possessed. Indisputably, the deceased had no driving license to drive such vehicle at the time of accident, and therefore, this opponent cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. That, the age of the deceased, relationship as employee and employer with the opponent no.1, accident occurred during the course of employment, time and place as well as date of the accident, involvement of the vehicle rickshaw, bearing registration no. GJ-1-XX-3124, name of the owner of the motor vehicle rickshaw, bearing registration no. GJ-1-XX-3124 and his address, were not admitted by this opponent. GJ-1-XX-3124, name of the owner of the motor vehicle rickshaw, bearing registration no. GJ-1-XX-3124 and his address, were not admitted by this opponent. As there was breach of condition under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, liability of the opponent no.2 cannot be fixed. Ultimately, it was requested by this opponent to dismiss the claim petition. 2.4 Learned Commissioner, after referring the pleadings of the parties, was pleased to frame issues vide Exh.26 and after recording the evidence of the parties, by its judgment and award dated 12.04.2007, was pleased to held all the opponents jointly or severally liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.2,76,255/- to the applicants from the date of accident i.e. 30.03.2006 along with interest @9% per annum within period of 30 days. 2.5 The appellant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner, has preferred this appeal. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar for the appellant. No arguments was advanced from the respondent/original claimants. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Commissioner has committed grave error in passing the award in favour of the claimants however, fully knowing that the deceased was holding license only for driving a non-transport vehicle and not for passengers vehicle. That, the deceased was driving rickshaw (taxi) without badge and thereby, committed breach of condition of policy. That, Senior Clerk, RTO has specifically stated in his deposition that deceased was holding a non-transport license meaning thereby he cannot drive a vehicle in which passengers can be transported. It is further argued that however, there was no evidence on record in respect of income of the deceased, learned Commissioner has committed error in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- without any proof of income. That, the order of the learned Commissioner is erroneous and bad in law, and therefore, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to allow this appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award qua the present appellant. 5. Having perused the record of the tribunal as well as submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant, it is true that issue of driving license was discussed by the learned Commissioner in the judgment and accepted the contentions of the appellant that it was proved from Exh.22 and Exh.40 that driving license no. 5. Having perused the record of the tribunal as well as submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant, it is true that issue of driving license was discussed by the learned Commissioner in the judgment and accepted the contentions of the appellant that it was proved from Exh.22 and Exh.40 that driving license no. 56191/IND dated 21.02.1986 was issued by licensing authority in favour of the deceased- Bhikhubhai was in force up to 31.05.2016. It was a license to drive auto rickshaw vehicle. One certificate vide Exh.41 was issued by the transport office of Junagadh and from this document, it clearly appears that the vehicle rickshaw, bearing registration no. GJ-1-XX-3124, involved in the accident was a passenger vehicle. That, vide Exh.44, senior clerk of the RTO office namely Rameshchandra was examined as a witness by the opponent no.2. This witness has stated in his deposition that the deceased-Bhikhubhai was holding driving license of the non-transport vehicle (Exh.22). That, non -transport license would not authorize to drive vehicle for carrying passengers. That, to drive passenger vehicle badge auto rickshaw PSVA would be required. In this case, no such badge was possessed in license of the deceased and therefore, the deceased was not authorized to drive passenger vehicle. It was also accepted by the learned Commissioner that the deceased was having license to drive auto rickshaw while the vehicle involved in the accident was auto rickshaw(Taxi) was a passenger vehicle for which badge number was not issued in favour of the deceased. Similarly, this issue raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein the vehicle involved in the accident was light goods vehicle and the driver has license to drive light motor vehicle. The tribunal held that in absence of specific authorization to drive transport vehicle, liability cannot be fastened on the insurer. Thereafter, the tribunal directed the insurer to pay the compensation in the first instance and allow it to recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle. Referring the judgment in case of Mukund Dewangan V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 363, Hon’ble Apex Court held that the order of the tribunal absolving the insurer shall be set aside. Liability shall be jointly or severally be fastened on the insurer in addition to the owner and driver. Here also same issue is raised by the present appellant. Liability shall be jointly or severally be fastened on the insurer in addition to the owner and driver. Here also same issue is raised by the present appellant. Learned Commissioner has held liability of both the opponents jointly and severally to pay the amount of compensation with interest @ 9% per annum to the applicants but, however, the opponent-present appellant was permitted to recover the amount paid to the claimants/applicants from the opponent no.1. Considering the legal position as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Jagdish Kumar Sood Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others in Civil Appeal No.240 of 2017, it can not be said that the order passed by the learned Commissioner is illegal and contrary to law. 6. So far as issue of considering the income of Rs.3000/- of the deceased is concerned, it is true that no document showing income of the deceased was produced before the learned Commissioner that the deceased was earning Rs.4000/- per month. The affidavit was produced by the opponent no.1 vide Exh.37 wherein relationship as driver of the opponent no.1 was accepted but there was no disclosure of his income paid by the opponent no.1. As per averments of the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.4000/- per month as he was serving as driver with the opponent no.1. Income considered by the tribunal at Rs.3000/- per month in the year of 2006 cannot be treated as excessive income. In absence of any proof of income, learned Commissioner has rightly considered the income of the deceased. In such type of case under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it would not be expected from the claimants to produce the documentary evidence of the income of the deceased/injured. Reasonable income would require to be considered by the learned Commissioner which in this case, has rightly assessed by the learned Commissioner. The claimants would naturally not in a position to secure the document from the owner of the motor vehicle rickshaw, bearing registration no. GJ-1-XX-3124, to prove the income of the deceased, and therefore, in such type of case, it would not be desirable to ask the claimants to produce such documents. In absence of proof of document, learned Commissioner has rightly relied upon the statement on oath of the applicant no.1-wife of the deceased. 7. GJ-1-XX-3124, to prove the income of the deceased, and therefore, in such type of case, it would not be desirable to ask the claimants to produce such documents. In absence of proof of document, learned Commissioner has rightly relied upon the statement on oath of the applicant no.1-wife of the deceased. 7. This Court is of the view that under the circumstances, no error or mistake was committed by the tribunal in calculating or assessing income or directing the present appellant to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and permitting to recover the same from the opponent no.1. Accordingly, this appeal requires dismissal and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner, Junagadh dated 12.04.2007 in W.C. (F) Case No.32 of 2006 stands confirmed. Appellant would not need to file any civil suit to recover the amount from the opponent no.1 paid to the claimants. 8. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned tribunal forthwith.