JUDGMENT : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923[in short "the Act"] against the impugned order dated 27.03.2008 in W.C. Case No. 1 of 2007 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nellore(FAC)[in short "Commissioner"]. 2. The appellant was the Opposite Party No. 2, Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were the applicants and Respondent No. 6 was the Opposite Party No. 1 before the learned Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred hereinafter as they arrayed before the learned Commissioner. 3. The case of the applicants, in brief, is as follows: a. It is stated that the deceased Kamireddy Giridhar @ Giribabu worked as a driver to the Auto bearing No. AP 26 W 8824 of O.P. No. 1. On 23.12.2006, while the deceased Giridhar was proceeding near Donthali Cross Road, Nellore Rural Mandal, he sustained injures in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment due to dashing a TATA Sumo. He died in the said accident. A case was registered by the Police in Crime No. 335 of 2006. b. The deceased used to get Rs. 6,000/-per month as wages and he was aged 28 years at the time of the alleged accident. Applicants claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-against the Opposite Parties. 4. O.P. No. 1 remained absent and was set ex parte. Whereas, O.P.2 filed counter denying the contents of the application and put the applicants to strict proof of their contentions. It is contended that the deceased was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the crime vehicle. The compensation claimed is highly excessive. It is further contended that there is no valid insurance policy on the date of the accident. 5. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, learned Commissioner framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he died due to personal injuries he received in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment? 2. Amount of compensation payable? 3. Who are liable to pay the compensation? 6. During the course of enquiry, Applicant No. 1, who is the wife of the deceased was examined as A.W.1. Exs.A.1 to A.4 were the documents marked. 2. Amount of compensation payable? 3. Who are liable to pay the compensation? 6. During the course of enquiry, Applicant No. 1, who is the wife of the deceased was examined as A.W.1. Exs.A.1 to A.4 were the documents marked. On behalf of the Insurance Company, R.Ws.1 and 2 were the witnesses examined. R.W.1 was the Junior Assistant from R.T.A.Office, Nellore. R.W.2 was the Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company. Exs.B.1 to B.3 were the documents marked. 7. After hearing both the counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, learned Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs. 3,77,093/-as compensation and ordered O.P. No. 2 to pay the amount and then recover from the owner of the vehicle. 8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Order, the Insurance Company/O.P. No. 2 preferred the present appeal by raising the following substantial question of law. "1. Whether the Order of the Commissioner is correct in making the appellant liable when it was concluded that the deceased was not holding an effective driving licence? 2. Whether the Order of the Commissioner is correct in applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to third parties when the deceased was not a third party?" 9. During the course of hearing, Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that the deceased had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, since it is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. She would further submit that the learned Commissioner cannot order pay and recovery against the Insurance Company. 10. Per Contra, Sri K.Gopal, learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 5 would submit that the deceased possessed driving licence to drive the non-transport vehicle, is authorized to drive the transport vehicle also. 11. A.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. According to her, the deceased died due to personal injuries, during the course of his employment as a driver of O.P. No. 1 and being the owner and insurer of the vehicle, O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation. During cross examination she stated that she had no proof of employment and salary of the deceased. 12. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation. During cross examination she stated that she had no proof of employment and salary of the deceased. 12. R.W.1, who was the Junior Assistant in R.T.A, Nellore deposed that as per the driving licence issued by them, the deceased was eligible to drive motor cycles, light motor vehicles and also non-transport vehicles. He further deposed that the deceased was not authorized to drive the transport vehicles. 13. R.W.2, who was working as an Administration Officer of O.P. No. 2 deposed that the deceased was authorized to drive LMV non-transport vehicle only, but the crime vehicle is a LMV Goods Carriage Auto (Transport). As such, the deceased was not in possession of effective driving licence to drive the crime vehicle at the time of the accident. He further deposed that O.P. No. 1 violated the terms and conditions of the policy and hence, O.P. No. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants. During cross examination, he admitted that the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident. 14. There is no dispute with regard to the employment, accident and the death of the deceased in the said accident. It is also established from the above evidence that the deceased was a workman and he died due to personal injuries received in the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under O.P. No. 1 as a driver of Auto. About the age and salary of the deceased, taking into consideration of the G.O.Ms. No. 8/22-1-2006, the learned Commissioner rightly awarded the compensation by taking the wages of the deceased at Rs. 3,619/-corresponding to his age. There is no rebuttal evidence to disprove the same. 15. Further, O.P. No. 2 contended that since the deceased was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident, they are not liable to pay compensation. Learned counsel for the applicants relied opposed the same by relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kulwant Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2014:INSC:746 : (2014) 4 ACC 640 : (2014) ACJ 2873, wherein, it was held as follows: "18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2014:INSC:746 : (2014) 4 ACC 640 : (2014) ACJ 2873, wherein, it was held as follows: "18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment (Civil Misc.Appeal No. 1016 of 2002, Order dated 31.10.2008(Mad) is, therefore, liable to be set aside." 16. In the present case, the fact of not having effective licence is proved and as such, O.P. No. 1 knowingly and intentionally violated the terms and conditions of the policy by allowing a person to drive the crime vehicle, who was not possessing valid driving licence and thereby committed breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, it is not the case of the Insurance Company that the policy was not in force by the date of accident. 17. Further more, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that pay and recovery cannot be ordered in this case. On this aspect, the learned Commissioner has relied on a decision in New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla And Others MANU/SC/0202/2001 : 2001:INSC:178 : AIR 2001 SC 1419 , wherein it was held as follows: "The insurer and insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid driving licence........" 18. Hence, in view of the above discussion, and the decisions referred to supra, the insurer cannot escape from its liability to pay the compensation during subsistence of insurance policy. Hence, in view of the above discussion, and the decisions referred to supra, the insurer cannot escape from its liability to pay the compensation during subsistence of insurance policy. However, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the compensation paid to the applicants from the insured, as rightly held by the learned Commissioner. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 19. In result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, shall also stand closed.