This appeal, under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, has been preferred by the United India Insurance Co., Ltd. i.e. insurer of offending vehicle no. U.P. 07A/9487, against the judgment and order dated 18-04-2007 passed by Workmen’s Compenstion Commissioner / District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, in W.C. Case No. 16/2006, Smt. Prakashi Devi versus Sri Ramesh Sethi and another.

2. The claimant- Smt. Prakashi Devi filed a claim petition before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner for grant of compensation in lieu of death of her son in a motor vehicle accident alleging therein that her son Vinod Kumar was employed as a driver in the offending vehicle Truck No. U.P. 07A-9487 owned by opposite party no. 1 and he died in an accident arising out or and in the course of his employment on 27-02-2003. It has also been alleged that deceased was 28 years of age at the time of his death and was getting a salary of Rs.3000/- per month.

3. Opposite party no. 1 owner of vehicle contested the claim petition by filing his written statement. He has admitted the factum of death of deceased in the accident on 27-02-2003 in vehicle no. U.P. 07A-9487. He has also admitted the fact that he used to give a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month to the deceased as salary; driver of vehicle in question was having valid driving licence and vehicle was insured on the date of accident. He has denied the fact that deceased was 28 years of age at the time of his death.

4. Opposite party no. 2 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed its written statement and alleged that claimant was living with her two sons Ravi Dutt Dheeman and Dev Dutt Dhimam. It has been alleged that accident had taken place within the jurisdiction of village Maroda P.S. Chamba, District Tehri Garhwal, therefore the court at Dehradun has no jurisdiction to hear the case. It has also been alleged that amount of compensation claimed is excessive. It has further been alleged that at the time of accident deceased Vinod Kumar was not the workman of opposite party no. 1 and he was not having valid driving licence and vehicle was not having valid permit, therefore the answering respondent is not liable to pay the compensation.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner framed necessary issues. Parties led evidence in support of their case.

6. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner having considered the entire material evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties directed that the insurance company shall pay a sum of Rs. 3,11,970/- to the claimant, vide judgment and order dated 18-04-2007.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the insurer of vehicle has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

8. Heard Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has argued that learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has erred in fastening the liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant despite the fact that offending vehicle was being plied on the road without permit. Therefore, he has submitted that the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant under the contract of insurance.

10. I fail to appreciate the argument advanced by learned counsel for the insurance company. It was the duty of the insurance company to verify the fact that permit of vehicle was valid or not, at the time of insurance of vehicle. Here, since the insurance company has insured the vehicle despite the fact that permit was not valid at the time of accident; therefore the insurance company cannot escape its liability to pay the compensation on this ground.

11. My attention has been drawn towards the decision of the Ho