THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.530 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
The present appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2016 passed in W.C.No.9 of 2013 on the file of the Authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Visakhapatnam and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Narsipatnam. The respondents 1 to 5 herein have filed the said application claiming compensation for the death of Esarapu Krishna Murthy while working as auto driver under the first opposite party-6th respondent herein. The Authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act by way of the impugned order, directed the Insurance Company-appellant herein to indemnify the first opposite party-6th respondent herein and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.5,96,712/- within a period of 30 days, failing which the Insurance Company is liable to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed on the ground that the deceased, who was the auto driver, is not having valid driving licence, but the Authority under the 2 Workmen's Compensation Act has erred in holding that the deceased was having valid driving licence.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant herein is that the driving licence of the deceased is for non-transport vehicle and the deceased drove the transport vehicle and therefore the deceased does not possess the requisite valid driving licence at the time of the incident and the Authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act has erroneously allowed the claim application and granted compensation and therefore prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
3. The aforesaid issue is no more res integra and already decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions that a person who possessed driving licence for non-transport vehicle is eligible to drive a vehicle of transport vehicle. Hence, the ground raised by the appellant-Insurance Company is no more res integra and the said ground is not comes under the purview of substantial question of law under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Hence, I found no reasons to interfere with 3 the order of the Authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
4. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of the appeal.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 14.12.2022 siva 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.530 OF 2017 Date: 14.12.2022 siva