The United India Insurance ... vs Smt. Mohd. Ajmeri Begum And 5 ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3279 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


      CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.165 OF 2007


                          JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by Opposite

Party No.2-insurance company challenging the Award of the

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant

Commissioner of Labour, Patancheru at Ramachandrapuram in W.C.

No.6 of 2004 dt.20.10.2006.

2. The appellant insurance company is challenging the award on

the ground that the deceased auto driver was only holding a licence

authorising him to drive a non-transport vehicle and he was not

authorised to drive an auto (transport) and as such the Commissioner

has erred in entertaining the application and awarding compensation

to the applicants. It was also submitted that the Commissioner has

failed to see that the auto was overloaded with 10 persons at the time

of the accident as against the permitted seating capacity of 4 in all and

therefore the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and

conditions of the policy and therefore, the insurance company is not

liable to pay any compensation. It is further submitted that the owner

of the vehicle did not appear nor did he admit that the deceased was

his driver. Thus, according to the insurance company, the employer

and employee relationship is not established. Therefore, according to

the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, the

awarding of compensation is not in accordance with law and is not

supported by any documentary evidence.

3. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5/applicants, Sri K.

Rathangapani Reddy, submitted that the deceased was having a valid

driving licence and therefore was entitled to drive transport vehicle of

the same category and that this issue is covered by a decision of the

Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental

Insurance Company Limited1. As regards the violation of the policy

conditions by permitting 10 persons to travel in the auto, it was

submitted that the deceased was only a driver of the auto and the

owner of the vehicle was answerable to the insurance company for the

violations, if any.

4. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed

on record, this Court finds that the Opposite Party No.1 being the

owner of the vehicle and also the vehicle being involved in the

accident are not in doubt. The fact that the owner of the vehicle did

not appear only goes to give an impression that he is not denying the

employer and employee relationship as claimed by the applicants.

(2017) 14 SCC 663

Therefore, the only other question is whether the licence held by the

deceased permitted him to drive the subject auto.

5. In the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund

Dewangan (1 supra), it was held that as long as the driver possesses a

licence to drive a category of vehicles, he is eligible for driving a

transport vehicle of the same category and therefore, he is entitled to

compensation in case of an accident as rightly awarded by the

Commissioner.

6. As far as the countention of the appellant that by permitting

more than 4 persons to travel in the auto at the time of the accident

and thereby violating the conditions of the policy and consequently,

the insurance company not being liable to pay the compensation is

concerned, the Commissioner has given a finding that the accident has

occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver in the

opposite vehicle and over seating of passengers is not the cause of

accident. This finding of the Commisisosner is not rebutted or

challenged by the appellant. Further, the Commissioner has held both

Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 to be jointly and

severally liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, this Court does

not find any reason to interfere with the awrd.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the

insurance company is dismissed. No order as to costs.

8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall also

stand dismissed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

Dt. .11.2021 Svv