JUDGMENT : K. MANMADHA RAO, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the ECA Act" for short) against the judgment and award dated 22.03.2019 in ECA No.09/2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Arkalgud (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner") for fastening the liability of respondent No.1 and seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Commissioner. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The appellant/claimant is the father of deceased Lokesh who met with a fatal accident on 08.04.2010 at about 5:30 am near Chikkodanahalli Gate while working as a driver of a canter vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-09 B-1359 belonging to respondent No.1. The deceased, who was hale and healthy prior to the accident, was employed under respondent No.1 on a monthly salary of Rs.7,500/- with a daily batta of Rs.50/-. The accident occurred during the course and out of employment, resulting in his death. Consequently, the appellant and his wife filed Claim Petition No.ECA.9/2014 seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum against respondent No.1, the owner, and respondent No.2, the insurer of the said vehicle. 3. Upon issuance of notice and substituted service through paper publication, respondent No.1 failed to appear and was placed ex-parte. The respondent No.2, on appearance, filed a written statement denying liability while admitting insurance coverage at the relevant time, contending that the deceased did not possess a valid driving license to operate a Medium Goods Vehicle (MGV). He was holding only an LMV license, thereby violating policy conditions. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner by its judgment and award dated 22.03.2019, accepted the contention of respondent No.2 and exonerated the insurer and erroneously fastened the liability upon the owner who remained ex-parte, awarding a meager sum of Rs.8,84,800/- with 12% interest per annum, without applying the principle of "pay and recovery", as per the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297 , Pappu and others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another, (2018) 3 SCC 208 and Shamanna and another v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, (2018) 9 SCC 650. 5. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297 , Pappu and others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another, (2018) 3 SCC 208 and Shamanna and another v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, (2018) 9 SCC 650. 5. It is further contended that considering the income of Rs.7,500/- and batta of Rs.50/- per day, which comes to nearly Rs.9,000/- per month. Hence, the Commissioner ought to have awarded Rs.9,000/- under the head of income. Further, appellant has also sought for enhancement under the heads of funeral expenses and rate of interest and also sought to award any compensation on the head of transportation. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant has preferred the present Appeal challenging the same on grounds of inadequate compensation and erroneous fastening of liability. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Respondent No.2. Notice to Respondent No.1 is dispensed with. 8. In support of his case, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on the following judgments: • Alok Kumar Ghosh v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another by order dated 09.10.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10482/2017: 15. Now, we shall consider the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the first respondent. In Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya (supra), the issue was whether interest is payable by an insurer while indemnifying the insured for the amount of compensation awarded against him under the 1923 Act. In that context, it was held by this Court that under the provisions of the 1923 Act the insurer is not statutorily liable as is the case under the Motor Vehicles Act. However, where a contract of insurance is entered into by and between the employer and the insurer, the insurer would be liable to indemnify the employer. It was also held that as there is no statutory liability on the insurer, it is open to the Insurance Company to refuse to insure. 16. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the insurer has undertaken the liability to indemnify the insured (i.e., the employer) and has not contracted out of his liability. In such circumstances, in our view, the aforesaid decision is of no help to the first respondent. 17. 16. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the insurer has undertaken the liability to indemnify the insured (i.e., the employer) and has not contracted out of his liability. In such circumstances, in our view, the aforesaid decision is of no help to the first respondent. 17. In J.P. Narayan (supra), this Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction upon Insurance Companies to delete the clause in the Insurance Policy which provided that in cases of compensation under the 1923 Act, the Insurance Company will not be liable to pay interest. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court held that in absence of statutory liability, it is a matter of contract between the Insurance Company and the insured and, therefore, it is always open to the Insurance Company to refuse to insure. In our view, this decision is of no help to the first respondent as no plea has been set up that the insurer is not liable to reimburse the interest amount payable under the claim. In fact, the first respondent has not even brought the insurance policy on record. Besides that, there is no finding of the Commissioner or the High Court that the insurance contract excluded liability to pay interest. 18. In view of the discussion above, in our view, there was no justification for the High Court to modify the order of the Commissioner and shift liability on the employer (the appellant) alone. Rather, the appropriate course would have been to make the employer and the insurer jointly and severally liable. However, as we are informed that the amount awarded by the Commissioner has already been deposited by the insurance company (the first respondent) in terms of the award, we do not deem it necessary to modify the award passed by the Commissioner. Consequently, the appeal is entitled to be allowed and the award of the Commissioner restored. 19. Before parting, we must express our anguish at the practice of Insurance Companies unnecessarily filing appeals by raising technical pleas more so when they do not deny their ultimate liability under the contract of insurance. As the first respondent unnecessarily filed an appeal before the High Court and for this reason compensation could not be timely released in favour of the second respondent, we deem it appropriate to compensate the second respondent with costs of Rs. 50,000 to be paid by the first respondent. As the first respondent unnecessarily filed an appeal before the High Court and for this reason compensation could not be timely released in favour of the second respondent, we deem it appropriate to compensate the second respondent with costs of Rs. 50,000 to be paid by the first respondent. In our view, the High Court also adopted a hyper technical approach and overlooked the provisions of Section 19 of the 1923 Act while modifying the award passed by the Commissioner to the disadvantage of the employee (i.e., the claimant) when there was no dispute regarding the liability of the insurance company under the contract of insurance. • The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Sadhika and others by order dated 12.01.2024 passed in MFA No. 9827/2012 (WC). 12. The law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court comes to the aid of the Insurance Company to the extent of avoiding its liability, but at the same time Insurance Company has to deposit and recover it from the owner. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rukmani's case (supra) held that the Insurance Company has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it under Section 96(2)(b)(ii) of the M.V.Act, 1939, when it had the knowledge that the driver had no valid driving licence at the time of accident, the burden of proving the said aspect is upon the Insurance Company. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Rathna's case (supra) has referred to the judgment in Rukmani's case. 14. In view of this, burden of proving that the deceased driver did not possess valid driving licence is upon the Insurance Company, but there is no evidence placed by the Insurance Company. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Singh Ram -Vs- Nirmala and Ors. in a similar situation where the Commissioner absolved the Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the owner for the reason of driver did not possess valid driving licence directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle. 15. In the case on hand, the petitioners claim that the deceased was holding valid driving licence, but there is no evidence in proof of it. There is no allegation that the owner was negligent or not verified the driving licence of the deceased nor it is a case of fake licence. 15. In the case on hand, the petitioners claim that the deceased was holding valid driving licence, but there is no evidence in proof of it. There is no allegation that the owner was negligent or not verified the driving licence of the deceased nor it is a case of fake licence. Under such circumstances, it is a case for applying the principle of 'pay and recovery'. 9. In support of his case, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 have placed reliance on the following judgments: • Beli Ram v. Rajinder Kumar and another, AIR 2020 SC 4453 . 15. We are conscious of the fact that in the present case the beneficiary is the driver himself who was negligent but then we are not dealing with a claim under the MV Act but under the Compensation Act, which provides for immediate succor, not really based on a fault theory with a limited compensation as specified being paid. We are, thus, in the present proceedings not required to decide the share of the burden between the appellant as the owner and the first respondent as the driver as may happen in a proceeding under the MV Act. 20. The learned Judge in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hem Raj [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hem Raj, 2011 SCC OnLine HP 4735 : 2012 ACJ 1891 (authored by Deepak Gupta, J., as he then was)] debated the question of the consequences of the MV Act being a beneficial piece of legislation. Thus, if two interpretations were possible, it was opined that the one which is in favour of the claimants should be given, but violence should not be done to the clear and plain language of the statute. Thus, while protecting the rights of the claimants by asking the insurance company to deposit the amount, the recovery of the same from the insured would follow as the sympathy can only be for the victim of the accident. The right which has to be protected, is of the victim and not the owner of the vehicle. It was, thus, observed in para 18 as under : (Hem Raj case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hem Raj, 2011 SCC OnLine HP 4735 : 2012 ACJ 1891 (authored by Deepak Gupta, J., as he then was)], SCC OnLine HP) “18. The right which has to be protected, is of the victim and not the owner of the vehicle. It was, thus, observed in para 18 as under : (Hem Raj case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hem Raj, 2011 SCC OnLine HP 4735 : 2012 ACJ 1891 (authored by Deepak Gupta, J., as he then was)], SCC OnLine HP) “18. When an employer employees a driver, it is his duty to check that the driver is duly licensed to drive the vehicle. Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that no owner or person incharge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person to drive the vehicle if he does not fulfil the requirements of Sections 3 and 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The owner must show that he has verified the licence. He must also take reasonable care to see that his employee gets his licence renewed within time. In my opinion, it is no defence for the owner to plead that he forgot that the driving licence of his employee had to be renewed. A person when he hands his motor vehicle to a driver owes some responsibility to society at large. Lives of innocent people are put to risk in case the vehicle is handed over to a person not duly licensed. Therefore, there must be some evidence to show that the owner had either checked the driving licence or had given instructions to his driver to get his driving licence renewed on expiry thereof. In the present case, no such evidence has been led. In view of the above discussion, I am clearly of the view that there was a breach of the terms of the policy and the Insurance Company could not have been held liable to satisfy the claim.” 22. When we turn to the facts of the present case there is almost an identical situation where the appellant has permitted to let the first respondent driver drive the truck with an expired licence for almost three (3) years. It is clearly a case of lack of reasonable care to see that the employee gets his licence renewed, further, if the original licence is verified, certainly the employer would know when the licence expires. And here it was a commercial vehicle being a truck. It is clearly a case of lack of reasonable care to see that the employee gets his licence renewed, further, if the original licence is verified, certainly the employer would know when the licence expires. And here it was a commercial vehicle being a truck. The appellant has to, thus, bear responsibility and consequent liability of permitting the driver to drive with an expired licence over a period of three (3) years. The only thing we note is that fortunately there has been no accident with a third party claimant but the person who has caused the sufferance and sufferer are one and the same person i.e. the first respondent driver. We are, however, dealing with the determination under the Compensation Act and those provisions are for the benefit of the workmen like the first respondent, even though he may be at fault, by determining a small amount payable to provide succor at the relevant stage when the larger issues could be debated in other proceedings. 24. We are not aware whether any other proceedings have been initiated or not, at least, none that have been brought to our notice. The aforesaid findings of the initial lack of care by the first respondent in not renewing the driving licence would be present, but the lack of care of the appellant as the employer would also arise. We have penned down the aforesaid views as such a situation is quite likely to arise in proceedings under the MV Act where a third party is claiming the amount. Proceedings here being under the Compensation Act, the consequences are not flowing to the first respondent as the initial negligent person. • New India Assurance Company Limited v. Anitha Sharma and another by order dated 24.09.2014 passed in FAO No. 458/2014. 10. The decision of the Commissioner fastening liability solely upon the employer (respondent No. 1) appears justified in the light of the ratio laid down in Beli Ram’s case supra which categorically held that where the driver was permitted to operate a commercial vehicle with an expired or inappropriate license, it constitutes a fundamental breach of policy conditions. The insurer cannot be saddled with liability in such circumstances because the employer failed to exercise reasonable care to ensure that his employee possessed a valid and effective driving license. 11. The insurer cannot be saddled with liability in such circumstances because the employer failed to exercise reasonable care to ensure that his employee possessed a valid and effective driving license. 11. In the present case, the deceased possessed only an LMV license but was driving a Medium Goods Vehicle (MGV) at the time of the accident. This amounts to a substantive breach, not a mere technical lapse. Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act explicitly casts a duty on the owner not to allow any person to drive unless duly licenced. The negligence of the employer in verifying the class of license and permitting such driving attracts vicarious responsibility. Hence, in light of the decision of Beli Ram ’s case supra, the insurer is entitled to be exonerated, and the entire liability properly rests on the employer. 12. While later cases such as Alok Kumar Ghosh’s case supra and Smt. Sadhika ’s case supra emphasised the “pay and recover” principle in welfare statutes, those decisions were based on situations where no substantive breach was established or where the insurer failed to discharge its burden of proof. In contrary, the present case involves a clear categorical violation i.e., employment of a driver without the proper license class. Therefore, these precedents are distinguishable and do not dilute the binding effect of Beli Ram’s case supra. 13. Accordingly, there is no justification to impose a “pay and recover” mechanism on the insurer when the employer himself permitted the violation that caused the policy breach. The insurer’s contractual liability stands extinguished, and the Commissioner rightly fastened the liability on the employer alone. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that claimant No.1/appellant has contended that the respondent No.1 was paying a salary of Rs.7,500/- per month and a daily allowance of Rs.50/- to the deceased Lokesh. However, except for the oral testimony of the appellant, no documentary evidence has been produced in support of the said contention. Therefore, in the absence of such proof and in view of the Central Government Notification dated 31.05.2010, the monthly income of the deceased is reasonably assessed at Rs.8,000/- by the Commissioner. It is further established that the deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of accident, which fact has not been disputed by the respondents. Therefore, in the absence of such proof and in view of the Central Government Notification dated 31.05.2010, the monthly income of the deceased is reasonably assessed at Rs.8,000/- by the Commissioner. It is further established that the deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of accident, which fact has not been disputed by the respondents. Accordingly, the age of the deceased is accepted as 23 years and the relevant factor applicable to that age under Schedule IV to the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, is 219.95. 15. As per Section 4(1)(a) of the said Act, the compensation payable shall be an amount equal to 50% of the monthly wages of the deceased employee multiplied by the relevant factor. Hence, appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.8,79,800/- (i.e., 50% of Rs.8,000/- = Rs.4,000/-; Rs.4,000/- × 219.95 = Rs.8,79,800/-) towards loss of dependency. The petitioner is also entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellant comes to Rs.8,84,800/-. 16. Further, under Section 4A(3) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, where the employer defaults in paying the compensation within one month from the date it becomes due, the employer shall, in addition to the amount of arrears, be liable to pay simple interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum or such higher rate not exceeding the maximum lending rate of any scheduled bank. In the present case, the liability to pay compensation fell due one month after the date of the accident, i.e., on 08.04.2010. Consequently, appellant shall be entitled to the total compensation of Rs.8,84,800/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 08.05.2010 till the date of realization. 17. As regards the enhancement of compensation, the compensation awarded by the Commissioner amounting to Rs.8,84,800/- along with interest at 12% per annum from 08.05.2010 till realization is hereby upheld as there is no error or infirmity in the assessment of income, age, or the computation of compensation under the Employees Compensation Act. 18. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) Appeal stands dismissed. (ii) The Judgment and Award dated 22.03.2019 in ECA No.09/2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Arkalgud, is hereby affirmed. (iii) Registry is directed to send back the TCR to the Court of the Commissioner.