JUDGMENT G.Shyam Prasad, J. - This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of the order dated 27.02.2007 passed in WC No.85 of 2003 by the Commissioner, Workmen s compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. The Appellant is United India Insurance Company, who is arrayed as Opposite Party No.2 (O.P.2) in the above WC case filed by the respondents. 3. The present claim petition is filed by the applicants under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act ). The facts of the claim petition are on 30.04.2003, while the applicant was discharging his duties as driver under Opposite Party No.1 during the course of his employment, the lorry dashed against RTC Bus and the driver of the lorry in the said accident. By the date of the accident, the driver of the lorry was working under Opposite Party No.1. The deceased had valid driving licence, and earning Rs.4000/- per month and batta of Rs.50/- per day. The applicants have filed their claim application before the Commissioner for grant of compensation on account of the death of the bread winner. 4. The learned Commissioner recorded the evidence of the witnesses A.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked documents Exs.A1 to A4 and also examined B.W.1 and got marked documents Exs.B1 to B5 and on hearing arguments, granted compensation of Rs.3,54,215/-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-insurance company has preferred the present appeal. 5. Heard arguments of learned Standing Counsel appearing for appellant-Insurance Company. None appeared for respondents. 6. Learned Standing counsel for appellant Insurance Company submits that though the appellant has raised several issues before the learned Commissioner, none of them have been considered and an erroneous order was passed granting compensation of Rs.3,54,215/- in favour of the respondents 1 to 8. It is the further case of the petitioner that the driver of the vehicle did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident and therefore, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle as per the terms and conditions of insurance policy, and that the deceased is not a third party to the insurance policy, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further argued that as per the contents of Ex.A1-FIR, the deceased himself was negligent in driving the vehicle. It is further argued that as per the contents of Ex.A1-FIR, the deceased himself was negligent in driving the vehicle. He further submits that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and as such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 7. On behalf of insurance company, (O.P.2), Sri N.Ramanjaneya Charyulu, Senior Assistant, was examined as B.W.1. He stated that as per records of O.P.2, the deceased had no valid driving licence. In fact, Ex.B5-Insurance Policy shows that there was coverage of the insurance for the life of the third party. Therefore, the insurance company cannot discharge his liability. Since the evidence of A.W.2 discloses that the deceased was having valid driving licence. The burden is on the insurer to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence. In fact, the insurer has to take steps to call the concerned RTA officials to prove that the driver of the vehicle is not having valid driving licence. The insurance company has not taken any steps for examining the concerned RTA officials to prove that the driver is not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. 8. The other contention that, as per Ex.A1-FIR, the deceased was negligent in driving the vehicle cannot be taken into consideration as there is no authentic evidence to prove that fact. The contents of Ex.A1-FIR are not sufficient proof to prove the negligent act on the part of the accused driver. The evidence of the employee of insurance company is not sufficient to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence. 9. The Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial Legislation. The respondents have filed their petition under workmen compensation in the year 2003. The award was passed in the year 2009 and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was preferred in the year 2009. At this stage, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award passed by the learned commissioner, and more over even on merits, there are no valid grounds to interfere with the findings of learned Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act. 10. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 27.02.2007 passed in WC No.85 of 2003 by the Commissioner, Workmen compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada, Krishna District. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.