JUDGMENT : 1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the order dated 05.07.2004 in WC No.1 of 2003 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Cirlce-1, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The Insurance Company is the appellant herein. 3. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows : The claim application was filed by the wife of Yelleti Siva Satya Vara Prasad @ Prasada Rao (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”), who was working as the Driver of an Auto Bearing No.AP 31 W 1250 owned by OP No.1, on monthly wage of Rs.3,000/-. On 20.04.2002, the auto was being driven by the deceased with a load of cashew, which was coming from Dasullapalem to be sold at Simhachalam. While going towards Simhachalam, the auto had met with accident at Kothavalasa at about 10:00 p.m. As the vehicle collided with a tree, which resulted in the immediate death of the deceased and the passengers in the vehicle received grievous injuries. As the deceased was working under OP No.1 and as the auto was insured with a policy by OP No.2, the claim application was filed seeking compensation. It was further pleaded that the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident. 4. OP No.1 i.e., owner though was indemnified about the claim did not attend the enquiry and was set ex parte. 5. OP No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter denying the employer and employee relationship, wages, age as claimed in the claim application and the driving license. 6. An additional counter was also filed by OP No.2/Insurance Company stating that OP No.2 had investigated the claim and contended that the deceased was having another wife by name Lakshmi and son Yelleti Sai Ram and therefore there is a mis-joinder of the claim application and as per the verification of the license in the Office of Licensing Authority at Visakhapatnam, it was revealed that the license is fake and fabricated one as the license DL No.6344 of 1998 was not issued in the name of the deceased. 7. 7. In support of her claim, the claimant herself was examined as AW1 apart from examining one Pudi Ramana as AW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 i.e., Copy of F.I.R., Copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report, Copy of Post-mortem Report, Copy of Insurance Policy, Copy of C-Book of the Auto, Copy of Charge-sheet, Driving License of the deceased respectively. In her evidence, the claimant denied that the driving license was fake one. 8. OP No.2 i.e., the Insurance Company examined one Ch. V. Govinda Raju, who working as Junior Assistant in the office of R.T.O., Visakhapatnam to establish that the driving license of the deceased was a fake one. The said Govinda Raju was examined as RW1 and deposed that the driving license was issued in the name of one P. Appa Rao, S/o. P. Krishna Rao with the authorization to drive the Light Motor Vehicles and the same was filed as Ex.R1. It was further deposed that Ex.A7 driving license was not issued to the deceased. 9. OP No.2 also examined one J. Sivaji, Senior Assistant (Legal) as RW2 to establish their defence. 10. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration : (1) Whether the deceased is a workman as per the provisions of the Act and died because of the injuries received during the course of employment and out of employment? (2) What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident? (3) What was the wages of the deceased at the time of accident? (4) Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation. If so, what amount of compensation the applicants are entitled to receive? (5) Who are liable to pay the compensation? 11. The Commissioner after examining Ex.A1 i.e., F.I.R. and Ex.A2 i.e., Post-mortem Report came to a conclusion that the accident occurred in the course of employment while the deceased was driving the vehicle. 12. The Commissioner took note of the evidence of RW1 and by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh and others, 2004 ACJ 1 = (2004) 3 SCC 297 , held that OP Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant at the rate of Rs.2,70,790/-. Hence, the present appeal is filed. 13. Hence, the present appeal is filed. 13. As notice to respondent No.2 was not served, this Court on 04.01.2012 passed the following order : “Learned Counsel for the appellant(s) is permitted to take out notice returnable in three weeks to respondent No(s).2 or to take the steps indicated, as the case may be. It is directed that in case notice is sent to the same address that was furnished in the O.P., and if for any reason, it is not served, the Registry shall treat the same as served, once the proof as to taking out notice is filed. In default, the appeal shall stand dismissed/abated, as the case may be.” 14. As the above peremptory order was not complied with, the appeal was dismissed against respondent No.2 as per the endorsement by the Registry. 15. Heard Sri P.B. Narasimha Murthy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Jayanti S.C. Sekhar, learned Counsel for the respondents. 16. It was contended by the Counsel for the appellant that dismissal of application against OP No.1 i.e., owner would not be of material evidence to this case since the very liability of the Insurance Company is in question. The Counsel for the appellant contended that the Commissioner erred in granting compensation to the claimant since the driving license was held to be a fake one in view of the categorical evidence of RW1, who was working in the concerned office at the relevant time. The original driving license issued to one Prasada Rao was marked as Ex.A1 and inspite of the same the Commissioner erred in granting compensation. The Counsel for the respondents supported in favour of the order passed by the Commissioner and contended that even assuming that the driving license of the petitioner is held to be not a genuine one, per se is not a ground to reject the claim. 17. Having considered the respective contentions, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal against the owner/OP No.1/respondent No.2 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the above quoted peremptory order, consequently the impugned order of the Commissioner making owner/ OP No.1 “jointly and severally” liable to pay the compensation had attained finality vis-a-vis the owner/OP No.1/respondent No.2. As the “joint and several liability” stood crystallized in view of dismissal of the appeal against OP No.1/owner/respondent No.2, the vicarious liability which was indemnified by the appellant also attained finality. As the “joint and several liability” stood crystallized in view of dismissal of the appeal against OP No.1/owner/respondent No.2, the vicarious liability which was indemnified by the appellant also attained finality. Hence, in the present appeal, no favourable order could be passed in favour of appellant as that would lead to inconsistent orders. 18. Notwithstanding the above, as regards the compensation, there is no evidence to establish that the OP No.1/employer had knowledge of the fake license produced by the deceased. Unless this fact of intentional employment of the deceased is established, the Insurance Company cannot disown the liability as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nirmala Kothari v. United Insurance Company Limited, (2020) 4 SCC 49 . The Paragraph 12 thereof is extracted below : “12. While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise. If the employer finds the driver to be competent to drive the vehicle and has satisfied himself that the driver has a driving licence there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and the Insurance Company would be liable under the policy. It would be unreasonable to place such a high onus on the insured to make enquiries with RTOs all over the country to ascertain the veracity of the driving licence. However, if the Insurance Company is able to prove that the owner/insured was aware or had notice that the licence was fake or invalid and still permitted the person to drive, the Insurance Company would no longer continue to be liable.” 19. In the above judgment, the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pepsu RTC v. National Insurance Company, (2013) 10 SCC 217 and National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh (supra), taking a similar view were also considered. Coming back to this case, the OP No.1 should have been summoned by the Insurance Company to establish the fact that he had engaged the deceased inspite of a fake licence and having not done so, the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability. 20. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner and the C.M.A. is dismissed. 21. 20. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner and the C.M.A. is dismissed. 21. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.