( 1. ) THIS is an appeal by the insurance company against the award dated April 25, 1978, passed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Ratlam (hereinafter called "the Commissioner "), in W. C. Case No. 25 of 1977 whereby the learned Commissioner has awarded Rs. 18,000 as compensation and costs of Rs. 100 to be paid by the insurance company to the claimants who are legal representatives of the deceased driver, Manaklal, who died during the course of his employment in an accident while driving the tractor of the employer, respondent No. 5, the insured.

( 2. ) THE claimants, who are respondents Nos. 1 to 4, filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner against the appellant and respondent No. 5 on July 16, 1977, alleging that the deceased, Manaklal, who was employed by respondent No. 5 as a driver, died in the course of his employment due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident which occurred on March 19, 1977, while driving the tractor of the employer. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 18,000 by way of compensation from the employer, i. e. , respondent No. 5, and the present appellant with whom the said tractor was insured.

( 3. ) THE appellant-insurance company resisted the claim on the ground, inter alia, that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass an award against the insurance company under the Workmens Compensation Act and the insurance company could not be impleaded as a party non-applicant. The appellant insurance company alleged that the deceased driver did not hold a valid and proper licence at the time of the accident and that since the employer, respondent No. 5, who was the owner insured in respect of the tractor, had committed a breach of the policy conditions and a contention in that regard had been raised by the appellant insurer, the Commissioner was not competent to decide the question of breach of condition of the insurance policy in respect of the tractor.

( 4. ) THE learned Commissioner, after recording evidence, came to the conclusion that the deceased, Manaklal, held a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and that he died in the course of his emplyoment under respondent No. 5 and that the application for compensation against the appellant insurance company was maintainable and that he was competent to decide the question of breach of the policy conditions. The learned Commissioner by the order under appeal awarded an amount of Rs. 18,000 as compensation and costs aforesaid, against the employer, respondent No. 5, and held the appellant insurer liable for payment of the compensation awarded to the claimants. In the event of the said compensation amount not being paid by May 25, 1978, by the insurance company, interest has been awarded at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation as payable from May 26, 1978, till full payment.

( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has challenged the award mainly on the ground that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass an award against the insurance company under the Workmens Compensation Act, because he has not been given power to decide the question of liability of the insurer as against the insured. It is the contention of learned counsel that in the instant case, the appellant insurance company has pleaded a breach of the contract of insurance which is a matter for the civil court to ascertain and determine and not the Commissioner who is not entitled to probe into the matter. The Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act can only decide the employers liability for compensation and the insurance company need not be joined as a non-applicant except in a case of insolvency of the employer covered by Section 14 of the Workmens Compensation Act, which is not the present case.

( 6. ) THE contention of learned counsel appearing for the claimants, on the other hand, is that where the employer has entered into a contract with the insurance company in respect of any liabil