JUDGMENT :

[Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.]

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant had challenged the award and after the allegation of the advocate, despite the fact that notice was served, no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant.

2. As far as the respondents are concerned, the notice has been served and Shri Kailash Singh Yadav, learned counsel has been instructed to appear on their behalf.

3. The present appeal involves following substantial questions of law:

a) Whether even if any employee is entitled for the compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, it is open for the insurer to avoid that liability on the ground that the deceased driver was not holding driving license and there had been any breach of policy conditions?

b) Whether the case was covered under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, and if not, whether the Appellant Company, being the indemnifier only, is liable to pay any compensation?

c) Whether the court below could have granted interest @ 12% p.a. that too from the date of accident?

4. So far as Question No. 'c' is concerned, it is covered by the statutory provisions under Section 4(a) of the Act. The recent judgment of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Siby George and Others, 2012 (4) T.A.C. 4 (S.C.) held that the interest has to be paid by the Insurance Company from the date of accident. Therefore, the said issue is no longer res-integra and is decided against the appellant.

5. As far as the substantial question no. 'b' is concerned, the matter was covered by the Insurance Policy. The factual data will not permit the Court to take a different view than that taken by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. The fact that the vehicle dashed with the truck and the driver was in the jeep and, therefore, the policy covered the death of the driver. Issue no. 1 and 2 have been answered against the appellant by giving the cogent reasons and therefore when the deceased died due to accidental injuries due to his employment and the driver was having his license, thus, the issue no. 1 and 2 having been decided against the appellant. There are questions of facts and therefore the vehicle being insured, it was the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle with whom the deceased was employed. There was a connection between the death, employment and accident. The accident arose out of employment is proved by cogent evidence. Hence, the said question is also answered against the appellant.

6. As far as the substantial question of law is concerned, the finding of fact is very clear that the deceased was a driver and the deceased had driving license which is a valid driving license. Nothing has been proved by the Insurance Company that the driver did not have a proper driving license proved from the record. The Learned Judge has heavily relied on the decision on the judgement of the Apex Court in New India Assurnace Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamla and Others and therefore has settled the Insurance Company with liability even on the smallness of the amount, the appeal requires to be dismissed.

7. At the outset, it is relevant to discuss the scope of this Court to entertain appeal against the award of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. The Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 has held as under :

"9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtai