JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Appellant-New India Assurance Company Ltd., has filed the present appeal, under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), against the award, dated 18.10.2013, passed by the Commissioner, under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Commissioner’). 2. By way of award dated 18.10.2013, learned Commissioner has allowed the petition for compensation, filed under Section 22 of the Act, by respondents No.1 to 4, in W.C. No.15/2 of 2011/2006, titled as Meera Devi & Others vs. Sunka Ram and Another, and has awarded the compensation of Rs.5,04,040/-, along with interest, in favour of respondents No.1 to 4. However, the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant being insurer of vehicle No.HP-69-0234, owned by respondent No.1. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, were referred to, by the learned Commissioner. 4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeal, before this Court, as emerge from the record, may be summed up, as under:- 4.1. Petitioners, being widow, minor sons and daughter of Shyam Lal, have filed the claim petition for compensation, under Section 22 of the Act, seeking compensation, on account of death of Shri Shyam Lal, on 21.08.2005, during the course of employment, while driving tractor No.HP69-0234, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the vehicle in question’), owned by respondent No.1-Sunka Ram. 4.2. The accident in question, is stated to have taken place due to mechanical defect. The age of Shri Shyam Lal, at the time of his death, has been pleaded as 35 years and his income is stated to be Rs.4,000/- per month, at the time of his death. Since, the death of Shyam Lal had taken place during the course of employment of respondent No.1, as such, the petitioners have sought the amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, as compensation, from the respondents being owner and insurer of the vehicle, in question. 5. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents, by filing their separate replies. 6. Owner Sunka Ram, has filed the reply, by taking the preliminary objections, that the application is not maintainable in the present form; learned Commissioner has no jurisdiction; and the petition is incomplete. 7. 5. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents, by filing their separate replies. 6. Owner Sunka Ram, has filed the reply, by taking the preliminary objections, that the application is not maintainable in the present form; learned Commissioner has no jurisdiction; and the petition is incomplete. 7. On merits, the factum of employment of Shri Shyam Lal, as driver, on vehicle, in question, has not been disputed. However, the other contents of the petition have been denied, including the salary of deceased Shyam Lal, as Rs.4,000/- per month. According to respondent No.1, deceased was getting only Rs.2,000/-, per month, as salary. 8. Insurance Company-respondent No.2, has filed its separate reply, by taking preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable; there was no employer employee relationship between Shyam Lal with respondent No.1; Shyam Lal was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, in question; and the vehicle, in question, was being permitted to ply contrary to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, as, the same was not having valid Route Permit, Registration Certificate and Fitness Certificate. 9. On merits, the factual position, as mentioned, in the petition, has been denied mainly for want of knowledge. 10. Thus, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 11. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Commissioner, vide order dated 29.08.2006:- 1. Whether the deceased Shyam Lal was driver on Tractor No.HP-69-0234 and died in the course of such employment of respondent No.1? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled for compensation if so to what amount and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether deceased Shyam Lal was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the class of vehicle involved in the accident? OPR-2 4. Whether there does not exist employer and employee relationship between deceased Shyam Lal and respondent No.1? OPR-2 5. Whether the vehicle was being plied contrary to the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and not having valid route permit, fitness certificate if so its effect? OPR-2 6. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR-1 7. Relief. 12. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. 13. OPR-2 5. Whether the vehicle was being plied contrary to the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and not having valid route permit, fitness certificate if so its effect? OPR-2 6. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR-1 7. Relief. 12. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. 13. After the closure of evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Commissioner has allowed the petition, as referred to above. 14. Feeling aggrieved from the said award, the Insurance Company, has filed the present appeal, before this Court, mainly, on the ground that the learned Commissioner, has committed legal error in deciding issue No.3 and concluded that respondent No.2, has failed to prove that there was breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Similarly, the learned Commissioner, according to respondent No.2, has erred in concluding that the driver of the vehicle, in question, was holding the driving licence at the time of accident, as these findings are not based upon any evidence. The learned Commissioner has wrongly relied upon the statements of RW-1, RW-2 and PW-3, while concluding that the driver possessed the driving licence, at the time of accident. 15. The findings have further been assailed on the ground that learned Commissioner has put undue reliance upon the oral testimony of the witnesses. 16. Apart from this, the findings have also been assailed on the ground that the learned Commissioner has also failed to appreciate the fact that insured deliberately has not submitted the details of the driving licence of his driver to the appellant-Insurance Company, despite the fact that the application, under Order 11 Rule 12 of the CPC, seeking particulars, was moved. 17. The findings have further been assailed on the ground that the insured had cleverly avoided the production of the documents on the plea that the same was lost in the accident. 18. The findings have further been assailed on the ground that the application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC has been disposed of on 13.6.2013, with the observations that the production/non-production of the driving licence will be considered at the time of final disposal of the case, whereas, the learned Commissioner has not given any findings qua the said application. 19. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the appeal. 20. 19. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the appeal. 20. On the basis of the above facts, Shri B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocate, has argued that the learned Commissioner, has wrongly fastened the liability to pay the compensation, on the Insurance Company and as such, a prayer has been made to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned award. 21. Per contra, Shri K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has supported the award. 22. Shri Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, has also supported the award, impugned herein, on the ground that the onus was on the Insurance Company to prove the issues No.3 to 5 and no evidence has been produced by them. Hence, a prayer has been made to dismiss the appeal. 23. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law vide order dated 16.12.2014:- 1. Whether the Id. Commissioner below has committed legal error in deciding issue No.3 by concluding that the appellant insurance company failed to prove breach of the terms and conditions of Insurance policy. Has not the Learned Commissioner below gravely erred in holding that the deceased driver was holding driving license at the time of accident in the absence of any evidence on record. 2. Whether the Id. Commissioner below has erred in relying upon the oral evidence of respondent No.5, RW- 1 and RW- 2. Has not the Ld. Commissioner gravely erred in unduly relying upon untrustworthy evidence of the respondent No.5 who stated that he could not give the details of driving license as the same was lost in the accident. Was not it the duty of the insured to seek and have the details of the driving license of the driver at the time of engaging him. Whether adverse inference should have been drawn against the insured respondent No.5 in not disclosing the details of driving license to the appellant insurance company. 24. After framing of issues, in this case, before the learned Commissioner, petitioner Meera Devi, appeared and deposed qua the fact that her husband was deployed as driver on the vehicle, in question. He was doing the work of driving for the last 12-13 years. He was getting salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. 24. After framing of issues, in this case, before the learned Commissioner, petitioner Meera Devi, appeared and deposed qua the fact that her husband was deployed as driver on the vehicle, in question. He was doing the work of driving for the last 12-13 years. He was getting salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. At the time of his death, age of her husband was 35 years. 25. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that she was not present, when the accident, in question, had taken place. She has denied that her husband was getting Rs.2,000/- per month as salary. 26. In the cross-examination by the Insurance Company, she has admitted that she is not having any documentary proof with regard to the income of her husband. She has denied that her husband was also not having the driving licence to drive the tractor. She has admitted that along with the case, she has not enclosed any document pertaining to the driving licence of her husband. 27. PW-2 HHC Dhani Ram, from Police Station Sadar, Bilaspur, has proved that in case FIR No.317 of 2005, untraced report has been submitted. 28. PW- 3, Rattan Lal deposed that Shyam Lal remain deputed, on his tractor as driver for 3-4 years. He was having the driving licence, when he was deputed so, by this witness and this witness used to pay Rs.4,000/- per month. Thereafter, Shyam Lal was employed as driver by respondent No.1 Sunka Ram. He has feigned his ignorance with regard to the salary, which Sunka Ram was allegedly paying to him. However, he has admitted that Shyam Lal was having the driving licence to drive the tractor. 29. In the cross-examination by the Insurance Company, he has admitted that when, Shyam Lal was engaged, as driver, he was having the driving licence. 30. To rebut this evidence, respondent No.1 Sunka Ram, appeared in the witness-box, as RW-1 and deposed that he had employed deceased Shyam Lal, as driver, on the vehicle, in question, and he used to pay Rs.2,000/-, per month, as salary, to him. When, deceased was employed, he had conducted his driving test and his driving licence was perused. The said driving licence was issued from Kangra. The licence authorized him to drive the LMV/ Transport/tractor and the same was valid from 2003 to 2006. The accident had taken place near Sungal, in which, Shyam Lal expired. When, deceased was employed, he had conducted his driving test and his driving licence was perused. The said driving licence was issued from Kangra. The licence authorized him to drive the LMV/ Transport/tractor and the same was valid from 2003 to 2006. The accident had taken place near Sungal, in which, Shyam Lal expired. The papers of the tractor, along with the driving licence, were misplaced. In this regard, FIR was also got registered by him. He has produced the copy of the Registration Certificate, Route Permit and Insurance Policy, as Ex.R-1 to R-3. 31. In the cross-examination, this witness has denied the suggestion that apart from Shyam Lal, two other persons were travelling on the vehicle, in question. He has denied that Shyam Lal was travelling on the tractor, in question, as an unauthorized passenger. According to his further deposition, he is not having any record, regarding the employment and payment of salary to Shyam Lal, as, he was employed one day prior to the date of accident. 32. RW-2 Mangat Ram, is owner of Tractor No.HP24-5976. In the year 2003, he has employed Shyam Lal, as driver, on this tractor. At the time of hiring the services of Shyam Lal, his driving licence was checked. The same was valid upto 2006. This witness used to pay Rs.1500/- per month to him, as salary. Shyam Lal was having the driving licence, which authorized him to drive the tractor. However, Shyam Lal left the job in the year 2004. 33. Perusal of the record shows that the Insurance Company has moved application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC, on 24.7.2012, before learned Commissioner, with a prayer to direct the respondent No.1-owner to produce the original documents of the vehicle i.e. Registration Certificate, Route Permit, Fitness Certificate, Insurance Policy and Driving Licence or particulars of Driving Licence, particulars of issuing office, date of issuance of driving licence and validity period of driving licence, along with wages and employment record of deceased Shyam Lal. 34. The said application was contested by respondent No.1, by taking the stand that respondent No.1, has already filed copies of Registration Certificate, Route Permit and Insurance Policy, which have already been exhibited as Ex.R-1 to R-3. 35. 34. The said application was contested by respondent No.1, by taking the stand that respondent No.1, has already filed copies of Registration Certificate, Route Permit and Insurance Policy, which have already been exhibited as Ex.R-1 to R-3. 35. Apart from this, it has also been pleaded, in the reply, that Shyam Lal was engaged, as driver, just 10-12 days prior to the accident and said Shyam Lal was having valid and effective driving licence, which authorized him to drive the LMV/Transport/tractor. The said licence was issued from Kangra and was valid from 2003 to 2006. However, the driving licence was in the custody of Shyam Lal and the said driving licence has been misplaced in the accident. 36. It is also the stand of respondent No.1 that this fact has been intimated to the police on 8.7.2009. The application was decided on 13.6.2013 by the learned Commissioner by holding that the employer was not having the particulars, as such, it has been held that no order can be passed on the application. 37. While deciding the petition, the learned Commissioner has relied upon the oral testimonies of RW-1 and RW-2. Ex. R-1 is the copy of the duplicate Registration Certificate of the vehicle, in question, Ex.R-2 is the Insurance Policy and Ex.R-3 is the Goods Carriage Permit. 38. RW-1 has specifically deposed that Shyam Lal was having driving licence, which was issued from Kangra. The said licence, according to him, authorized him to drive the LMV/Transport/tractor and its validity was from 2003 to 2006 and according to the deposition of this witness the original documents, along with driving licence, have been lost in the accident. 39. Merely, the Insurance Company has moved the application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC, does not absolve the insurance company from the duty to probabilize their stand that deceased Shyam Lal was not having a valid and effective driving licence. 40. Insurance Company, in the present case, has not made any effort to summon the record of the Licensing Authority Kangra, with regard to the driving licence of Shyam Lal, which was valid from 2003 to 2006. Situation would have been otherwise, had the Insurance Company made efforts to summon the record from Licensing Authority Kangra, to prove or probabilize that no such licence was issued from any Licensing Authority of District Kangra, in the name of Shyam Lal son of Shri Rattan Lal. Situation would have been otherwise, had the Insurance Company made efforts to summon the record from Licensing Authority Kangra, to prove or probabilize that no such licence was issued from any Licensing Authority of District Kangra, in the name of Shyam Lal son of Shri Rattan Lal. 41. The onus was upon the Insurance Company to prove issue No.3. There is nothing on the record that the order passed by the learned Commissioner, while disposing of application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC was ever assailed by the Insurance Company. The said application was decided on 13.6.2013 and matter was finally decided on 18.10.2013. 42. Keeping in view the low legal literacy of the Indian masses, it cannot be expected from the owner to note down the particulars of the driving licence of the driver, employed by him or keep the copy of the licence with him. Moreover, a specific stand has been taken by respondent No.1 that before engaging Shyam Lal, as driver, he has satisfied himself with regard to his capability to drive the vehicle, in question and also perused his driving licence. 43. Once, the basic requirement with regard to the driving test has been conducted by the insured and he also perused his driving licence, then, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the onus was on the Insurance Company to prove issue No.3 and without making any efforts, no benefit could be derived by the Insurance Company from the fact that ‘the so called complete particulars’ were not supplied by respondent No.1. 44. Another point, which has rightly been highlighted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, in this case is that the tone and tenor of the cross-examination of the Insurance Company was to probabilize the fact that Shyam Lal was not driver, but, he was unauthorized passenger. On the basis of such fishing inquiry, the Insurance Company is not entitled to any relief. As such, both the substantial questions of law, are decided against the appellant. 45. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.