Abdul Gafoor, J.

Insurer is the appellant. The appellant assails the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner in favour of the respondents, dependents of a deceased workman. He was a driver. He succumbed to injuries on 28.3.2002, when a jeep of his employer driven by him hit on another stationary vehicle. The Ist respondent/claimant claimed compensation in terms of the provisions contained in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The employer remained ex-parte. The insurer/appellant contested the matter. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the workman did not have a licence to drive a motor vehicle. Therefore his action was unauthorized. So this dependent was not entitled to claim compensation. The dependent, the mother of the deceased contended that he did have a driving licence. Anyhow, based on the evidence on record the tribunal came to the conclusion that he was authorized to drive the vehicle by his employer. It was contended by the Ist respondent/claimant that the workman did have a monthly salary of Rs.4,500/-. No other documents were produced. The tribunal therefore took the maximum allowable in terms of the provisions in the Act to compute