The New India Assurance Company ... vs Karnam Shivaiah 2 Ors.
2021 Latest Caselaw 3473 Tel

     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.

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