Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co ... vs Esarapu Talupulamma, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9609 AP

 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

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

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

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.530 OF 2017

Date: 14.12.2022

siva