ORDER : 1. This appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company, against the orders of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-II, in W.C.No.104 of 2004 dated 01.03.2005, whereunder the Commissioner granted compensation of Rs.2,51,929/-to the applicants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased. 2. From the perusal of the order in W.C.No.104 of 2004 it would reflect that that one Yaladri was working as a bore well helper and was employed by the Owner of the vehicle bearing Lorry No.AET 6565. On 01.04.2004, while he was working as such, the driver of the said vehicle moved the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted the rear wheel of the vehicle running over the body of the deceased due to which he sustained grievous injuries all over his body and immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nanded, and while undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injuries. The family members of the deceased filed the application for grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. After adducing evidence and marking exhibits, the learned Commissioner granted an amount of Rs.2,51,929/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred this Appeal. 3. Heard both the counsel and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Commissioner failed to consider the aspect that as per the Charge Sheet Ex.A-2, the driver of the insured lorry involved in the accident bearing No.AET 6565 and he did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. He would further aver that this constituted a breach of the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver and therefore the appellant insurance company would not be liable to pay compensation. 5. Learned Commissioner observed in his order that even if it is assumed that the driver had no driving licence, it was not the fault of the deceased and the claimants. The onus lies on the owner of the vehicle to check the documents and driving licence of the driver before handing over the vehicle. The Commissioner observed that as the death occurred during the course of employment, the owner of the vehicle and the insurer would be jointly and severally liable for the same. 6. From the above facts, it would reveal that the owner of the vehicle was examined. The Commissioner observed that as the death occurred during the course of employment, the owner of the vehicle and the insurer would be jointly and severally liable for the same. 6. From the above facts, it would reveal that the owner of the vehicle was examined. During his examination, he has not stated that he verified the driving licence before engaging the driver. He simply deposed that as per the charge-sheet, the driver did not produce his driving licence. He also denied the suggestion that the driver had a valid driving licence but did not produce it before the police, through this it is seen that the owner of the vehicle failed in fulfilling his duty and hence violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The owner alone would be liable to pay the compensation in such circumstances and the insurance company would be absolved of its liability. It is for the applicants to prove that the driver had a valid driving licence as they failed to do so, the insurance company would not be liable to pay the compensation. 7. Learned Commissioner did not award interest on the awarded compensation. The applicants are entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident to the date of realisation in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SABERABIBI YAKUBBHAI SHAIKH V/s NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 2014 (2) SCC 298 . As the deposit was already made by the insurance company, the applicants are entitled interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident to the date of such deposit. 8. In the interest of justice, the applicants are entitled to withdraw the amount which has been deposited by the Insurance Company. The applicants are also entitled to recover the interest on the same amount from the owner of the vehicle. Further, the insurance company is at liberty to recover the amount deposited by it from the owner of the vehicle. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 10. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed in the light of this final order.