JUDGMENT

I. MAHANTY, J. : The National Insurance Company Limited herein has sought to challenge the award judgment dated 9.11.2001 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhenkanal, Angul (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commissioner’) in W.C. Case No.43 of 1997.

2. The case of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that they are parents of one deceased Sukadev Sahoo, who died in course of his employment while working as a Driver under respondent No.3, who is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration number. OR-05-E-0636. It is alleged in the claim petition that at the time of accident, the deceased was twenty-five years old and was getting Rs.1200/- per month from the respondent No.3. Respondent No.3, owner of the vehicle appeared before the learned Commissioner and filed a written statement admitting employment of deceased-Sukadev Sahoo as the driver and also admitting that the death of deceased was due to the accident, but disowned his liability on the ground that his vehicle had been validly insured under the appellant-insurance company and under the indemnity clause of the policy, the present appellant-company is liable to pay the com¬pensation to the dependants of the deceased.

3. The appellant-company appeared before the learned Commissioner and filed its written statement. While contesting the case on merit, it disowned the liability and denied the averments made in the claim application including the accident, employment, age and wage of the deceased and called upon respond¬ent Nos.1 and 2 to prove their case.

4. After going through the material available on record placed before the learned Commissioner, he came to the finding that the deceased was a workman under respondent No.3 and his dependants respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to compensation and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,30,146/ payable by the appel¬lant-company in favour of the claimants and further directed the amount should be deposited by 15.12.2001, failing which interest shall be charged as per the provision of law.

5. The appellant-company in the present appeal challenges the impugned judgment on the ground that the deceased had a “forged driving licence” and they had lodged a complaint with the State Vigilance Department to ascertain the genuineness of the driving licence and in response to the appellant’s query, the Vigilance Department vide their letter No.917 dated 7.9.2000 affirmed that the licence of the deceased was renewed till 31.12.1995, but on the date of accident, the deceased was not possessing a valid driving licence. It would be pertinent to pointout here that this fact was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner during the claim proceeding, but the letter of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance, Angul Unit, Angul was placed before this Court in the present appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. None appears for the respondents in the Court. As the matter is pending since long, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this appeal pending and ac¬cordingly the appeal was heard and is being disposed of by the present judgment.

7. The content of the letter of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance, Angul Unit, Angul, does not support the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-company that the driving license of the deceased was “forged”. On the contrary, the said letter confirms that the deceased had a valid driving licence, which was valid till ’31.12.1995' and not ’31.12.1998' as claimed by the claimants and at best, it goes to establish that on the date of accident, i.e, on 6.4.1997 the deceased workman did not have a valid driving license.

8. In this respect the decision of a division bench of this Court in the case of Divisional Manager, Boudh Commercial Division, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. v. Janakala¬ta Barik and others, reported in 2001(I) OLR 535 was relied on for various clauses of the Certificate of I