Rajesh Tandon, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
Present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 6th September, 2003 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Champawat in Case No. 10 of 2000, Smt. Neela Devi and Ors. v. Smt. Janaki Devi and Anr.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that respondent Smt. Neela Devi has filed a claim petition under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act for grant of compensation on account of the death of her husband Sri Durga Dutt in a motor vehicle accident. The petitioner has submitted that her husband was employed as a driver on truck No. UGP 4015, which was owned by Smt. Janaki Devi. The truck has met with an accident on 2nd June, 1999 on Chhinkachhina Dhuwamauni road due to some mechanical fault and deceased Durga Dutt died instantaneously due to injuries sustained in the accident. The husband of the petitioner deceased Sri Durga Dutt was driving the truck being an employee at the time of accident, hence the petitioner is entitled to get compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act.
3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition. Opposite party No. 1 Smt. Janaki Devi admitted that the truck No. UGP 4015 was owned by her and deceased was employed on her truck as a driver. However, she has submitted that the truck was validly insured with the Oriental Insurance Company and the insurer is solely liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
4. The Oriental Insurance Company has filed its written statement and admitted that the truck v/as insured with it. However, the insurer has alleged that the driver has no valid driving licence and the owner of the truck has no registration certificate permit and fitness certificate. The truck was loaded with 6 passengers at the time of accident.
5. The learned Commissioner has held that the deceased was driving the truck being employed as a driver. He had valid driving licence and the owner has valid registration certificate, fitness and permit. The Court below has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,65,440/- as compensation on the basis of multiplier prescribed under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Commissioner has held that as the truck was validly insured at the time of accident, hence the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company.
The only substantial question of law which has been framed by the appellant is as under:
Whether the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award even when the driver of vehicle is not holding valid and effective driving licence.
7. In the Court below the appellant had produced report of the Surveyor which shows that the truck was insured from 27th March, 1999 to 26 th March, 2000. The accident had taken place on 2nd June, 1999. Therefore, on the date of accident the truck was insured with the appellant. The Surveyor of the Insurance Company has also stated in his report that the driver had valid driving licence. The driving licence was also produced before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner which was valid from 8th January, 1999 to 7th January, 2002 and it was also valid for driving the vehicle on hill roads. Endorsement to this effect was also made in the driving licence by the authority concerned.
8. The truck was validly insured and the deceased Durga Dutt being the workman was driving the truck. Therefore, the appellant insurer is liable to pay compensation to the workman. I find no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and award passed by the learned Workmen's Commissioner. No other substantial question of law has been argued. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.