JUDGMENT : 1. This is a statutory appeal filed under section 30 of the Employees Compensation (Workmen’s Compensation) Act, 1923 aimed against an award dated 22.03.2010 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Commissioner Employee’s Compensation), Jammu on File no. Death-33/WCAct/06 titled – “Mandu Ram and Ors. Vs Harjeet Singh and Anr.”. 2. In terms of said award, the respondents no. 1 and 2, the parents of the deceased workman - Roshan Lal, have come to be awarded compensation of an amount of Rs.4,33,820/- made payable by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Co. Ltd (in short ‘OIC’) as being the insurer of ill-fated vehicle being registration no. JK02T-4255 owned by the respondent no. 4 – Harjeet Singh and was driven by said Roshan Lal. 3. The deceased – Roshan Lal was in the employment of the respondent no. 4 – Harjeet Singh as a Truck driver having Truck no. JK02T-4255 at his driving disposal. On 15.04.2006, when the deceased – Roshan Lal was driving said Truck no. JK02T-4255 on its way from Jammu to Srinagar, upon reaching Betri Chashma, said Truck met with an accident by skidding into a Nallah resulting in death of its driver - Roshan Lal. 4. Upon this incident, the parents of the deceased – Roshan Lal i.e. the respondents no. 1 and 2 joined by his brother came to petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu as being Commissioner Under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 on the basis of fact that the deceased – Roshan Lal was in the employment of the respondent no. 4 – Harjeet Singh, the registered owner of the said vehicle which was having an insurance from the appellant-OIC vide policy no. 262200/31/2006/4670 effect from 25.03.2006 to 24.03.2007. 5. The claim petition so preferred by the respondents no. 1 and 2 as being the parents of the deceased – Roshan Lal before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu came to be contested only by the appellant-OIC while the respondent no. 4 – Harjeet Singh, the owner of the vehicle in reference despite service refrained to join the proceedings resulting in ex-parte proceedings against him before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu. 6. The appellant-OIC from its end opposed the claim petition and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu came to frame the following issues in the claim petition:- “1. 4 – Harjeet Singh, the owner of the vehicle in reference despite service refrained to join the proceedings resulting in ex-parte proceedings against him before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu. 6. The appellant-OIC from its end opposed the claim petition and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu came to frame the following issues in the claim petition:- “1. Whether the deceased driver falls under the definition of Workman as prescribed in the definition of Workman under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923? OPP 2. Whether the deceased driver met with an accident during and in the course of his employment with the respondent no. 1? 3. What were the wages and age of the deceased at the time of accident/death? 4. Relief. From their end, the parents of the deceased – Roshan Lal as being claimants came to lead evidence in the form of statement of the respondent no. 1 - Mandu Ram, the father of the deceased – Roshan Lal who came to state that his son was a driver by profession in the employment of respondent no. 4 – Harjeet Singh and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month as wages and in addition to Rs.100/- per day per trip. The age of the deceased – Roshan Lal was said to be 25 years at the time of his death and that he was the only bread earner of his parents. In addition, the parents of the deceased – Roshan Lal examined witness Shiv Ram who also confirmed the age, relationship and status of the deceased – Roshan Lal. 7. From the end of the appellant-OIC, Junior Assistant ARTO, Rajouri came to be summoned as a witness with respect to driving license no. 6415/MVD/R dated 24.12.2003 which was proved to have been issued in favour of one Mohd. Qadir S/o Noor Din R/o Dera Bullian, Poonch and not in favour of the deceased – Roshan Lal. 8. The respondent no. 4 – Harjeet Singh, the owner of the vehicle also came to be examined at the instance of the appellant-OIC as a witness in the case and in his statement, the respondent no. 4 – Harjeet Singh confirmed the fact that he was the owner of the vehicle no. 8. The respondent no. 4 – Harjeet Singh, the owner of the vehicle also came to be examined at the instance of the appellant-OIC as a witness in the case and in his statement, the respondent no. 4 – Harjeet Singh confirmed the fact that he was the owner of the vehicle no. JK02T-4255 (Truck) which was having insurance cover from the appellant-OIC and that the deceased – Roshan Lal was driver under his employment who lost his life on account of the accident taking place on 15.04.2006 in which even his Truck was totally damaged and insurance claim for damage to the Truck property was rejected on the ground that the deceased – Roshan Lal was not having any valid effective driving license. 9. Upon the basis of evidence so led, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu as being Commissioner Employee’s Compensation came to act upon the undisputed state of facts that the deceased – Roshan Lal was a driver by occupation in the employment of the respondent no. 4 – Harjeet Singh earning monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- per month and meeting his death in an accident in the course of his employment. The insurance of the ill fated Truck no. JK02T-4255 was also confirmed. 10. With reference to the plea of the appellant-OIC that the driving license of the deceased – Roshan Lal was not genuine one as a result whereof the claim under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 was not admissible, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu came to negate the said plea by reference to judgment of this Court in the case of “Smt. Noora and Ors. Vs Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.” in CIMA no. 32/2001 decided on 21.02.2005 on the point that there is no provision under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 that a driver in the employment of an employer needs to possess a valid driving license. 11. Vs Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.” in CIMA no. 32/2001 decided on 21.02.2005 on the point that there is no provision under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 that a driver in the employment of an employer needs to possess a valid driving license. 11. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu came to refer to section 4(1)(a) read with schedule IV of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 to compute the compensation payable in favour of the parents of the deceased – Roshan Lal to an amount of Rs.4,33,820/- the liability of payment of which came to be rested and placed upon the appellant-OIC and the liability to pay interest on the compensation so awarded @12% per annum with effect from 23.04.2010 till the actual payment of compensation came to be shifted unto the respondent no. 4 – Harjeet Singh, the owner of the said Truck, in addition to a penalty of Rs.30,000/- also to be payable by the said owner – Harjeet Singh. 12. It is against this award that the appellant-OIC has come to assail the award primarily on the ground of driving license status of the deceased – Roshan Lal by citing that the insurance policy excluded the liability of the appellant-OIC if the person driving the said vehicle does not hold effective driving license at the time of the accident and was disqualified from holding or obtaining such a driving license. 13. It is solely upon this ground that the appellant-OIC is meaning to relieve itself from the burden of paying the compensation so awarded by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu. 14. The Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is edificed on the legislative policy of securing the life and limb of an employee who comes to suffer in accident in the course of his/her employment under an employer leaving him/her dead or injured and to provide compensation to such an employee/legal heirs from the end of the employer by a statutory mechanism and not leaving him/her or the legal heirs in the lurch. 15. Thus, the essence of claim for compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is an accident occurring to an employee in the course of his/her employment leaving him/her physically disabled or dead. 15. Thus, the essence of claim for compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is an accident occurring to an employee in the course of his/her employment leaving him/her physically disabled or dead. Upon such an incident taking place, the entitlement for compensation in favour of such an employee sets in and that is not dependent upon the fact as to whether the employee was competent to serve the employment for which he came to be employed by the employer. An employer after having engaged an employee for service cannot be heard to resile from responsibility to pay compensation to such an employee in the event of an accident happening causing injury/death to him or her on the plea that said employee was not competent to carry out the job for which he was so employed. If an employer cannot be afforded such a option of escape from liability of paying the compensation, then an Insurer of such an employer and also not be relieved from its liability to indemnify upon happening of an incident for which insurance cover has been availed. 16. In the present case, the insistence of the appellant-OIC that the deceased was not having a driving license to drive the vehicle would not dilute the legal relationship obtaining between the deceased and his employer and also the fact that the death of the deceased had come to take place while in the course of employment of the employer. It is not the case of the appellant-OIC or for that matter of the insured (employer) that the accident which cost the life of the deceased was caused by the negligence of the deceased. 17. In its judgment in the case of “Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Hazira Begum and Ors.” reported in 1995 ACJ 236 , Karnataka High Court has come to hold that where workmen engaged in the employer’s business and who was doing a very thing he was employed to do then mere fact that he was not acting strictly by the letter of law will not make the accident any the less “arising out of and in the course of employment” and, as such, an employer and the Insurance Company are both liable in such an event. 18. The aforesaid judgment of the Karnataka High Court has been followed by this Court in the case of “Sr. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Vs. Mst. 18. The aforesaid judgment of the Karnataka High Court has been followed by this Court in the case of “Sr. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Vs. Mst. Noora and Ors.” reported in 2005 (3) JKJ 27 . 19. In the light of the aforesaid, the snatch of the appellants’ case with respect to the driving license status of the deceased losses its grip and, as such, the award passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu granting compensation in favour of the parents of the deceased – Roshan Lal cannot be faulted with. Thus, the appeal gets dismissed. 20. In case, if the appellants reckons that as per policy the insured i.e. the employer acted in breach in engaging the deceased for driving the vehicle insured without possessing valid driving license then the appellants is to work out its remedy as per the contract of insurance made with the employer and not to use the plea to defeat claim of parents of the deceased workmen for compensation for his death in the course of his employment with the employer. 21. Given the fact that for the purpose of maintaining the present statutory appeal, the appellant-OIC had deposit the award amount with the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Commissioner Employee’s Compensation), Jammu. This Court, instead of requiring the respondents no. 1 and 2 who are the parents of deceased driver, namely, Roshan Lal to the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Commissioner Employee’s Compensation), Jammu to secure payment of said compensation amount, hereby directs the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Commissioner Employee’s Compensation), Jammu to remit the entire award amount so deposited by the appellant-OIC with respect to an award dated 22.03.2010 on File no. 33/WCAct/06 titled – “Mandu Ram and Ors. Vs Harjeet Singh and Anr.” The entire said amount be remitted to this Court by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Commissioner Employee’s Compensation), Jammu within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order to be sent by the Registrar Judicial, Jammu. Upon receipt of amount from the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Commissioner Employee’s Compensation), Jammu, let the said amount be kept in a fixed deposit and the Registrar Judicial, Jammu shall notify the fact of receipt of the amount to the High Court Legal Service Committee, Jammu. 22. The Legal Service Committee of the High Court of J&K and Ladakh is then directed to notify the respondents no. 22. The Legal Service Committee of the High Court of J&K and Ladakh is then directed to notify the respondents no. 1 and 2, namely, Mandu Ram and Kosalay Devi about the deposit of the award amount with the High Court of J&K and Ladakh for enabling them to approach this Court for seeking its release.