THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.969 OF 2006
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by Opposite Party No.1-Insurance Company challenging the Award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, in W.C. No.72 of 2000, dated 12.09.2006.
2. Heard Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company. Perused the material available on record.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submitted that Sri Karnam Laxman-driver of the vehicle was only 18 years of age at the time of accident and the vehicle involved is a tractor and trailor bearing Nos.AP25T-6869 and AP25T 6836 respectively and that the said driver received injuries and later succumbed to the said injuries on 15.10.2000 at Osmania Government Hospital, Hyderabad. He further submitted that the deceased was 18 years of age at the time of accident and also the claimants have not produced his driving licence. Therefore, according to him, the learned Commissioner has erred in awarding the compensation by treating the age of deceased-driver as 22 years, though the post-mortem report shows the age of the deceased as 18 years.
2
4. Having regard to the material placed on record and the impugned award of the learned Commissioner, this Court finds that in the post-mortem report, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 18 years at the time of accident, whereas the father of the deceased reported that his son was 22 years of age. Therefore, the learned Commissioner has considered the evidence of deceased father that the age of deceased is 22 years at the time of accident. However, post- mortem report is based on scientific examination of the body of the deceased and therefore, it cannot be disregarded in toto as against he oral evidence of the father of the deceased. Though the father of the deceased is first source to determine the age of his son, the medical evidence is more reliable. Therefore, this Court sets aside the finding of the learned Commissioner that the age of the deceased is 22 years. However, even if the deceased is to be considered as 18 years, he is eligible to obtain a driving licence to drive a vehicle. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that since he is 18 years of age, he did not possess a driving licence to drive a vehicle. Hence, the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner needs no interference.
5. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall also stand dismissed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 15.11.2021 Isn