Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Smt. Hema Arya on 18 September, 2025
2025:UHC:8107
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 301 of 2024
18th September, 2025
National Insurance Company .........Appellant
Versus
Smt. Hema Arya ........Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vinayak Pant proxy counsel for Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned
counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company.
Mr. Devesh Upreti, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to
3/claimants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.
Present appeal, under Section 30 of the
Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred
to as "the Act"), has been filed by the
appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgment
and award dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned
Employees' Compensation Commissioner/Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital in
E.C.A. No. 33 of 2022 "Smt. Hema Arya & Others vs.
Pramod Chandra Pandey & Another". By the impugned
award, compensation of ₹9,95,990/- along with interest
@ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition
till actual payment has been awarded in favour of the
respondent nos. 1 to 3 (widow and minor children of
deceased Lalit Mohan Arya) against the
appellant/Insurance Company.
2025:UHC:8107
2. The case of the claimants before the learned
Commissioner was that deceased Lalit Mohan Arya, aged
39 years, was employed as a driver with respondent no.
4, the owner of vehicle No. UK-04-TA-0051. He was
drawing a salary of ₹20,000/- per month apart from food
and other allowances, and was also earning from
property transactions. On 28.05.2022, while driving the
said vehicle from Nainital to Bhawali, a baby leopard
suddenly crossed the road near Jokhiya. In an attempt to
save the animal, the vehicle lost balance and met with an
accident, resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased. The
employer (respondent no. 4) admitted ownership of the
vehicle, the employment of the deceased as a salaried
driver, and the existence of a valid insurance policy with
the appellant Company. The appellant/Insurance
Company, however, denied the claim and raised
objections, inter alia, that the deceased was not proved to
be employed by respondent no. 4, and more importantly,
that the driving licence of the deceased did not contain
the mandatory "hill endorsement" as required under Rule
195 of the Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011,
thereby rendering the licence invalid.
3. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence, the
Tribunal framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the deceased driver Lalit Mohan Arya was a
2025:UHC:8107
"workman" within the meaning of the Act?
(ii) Whether the accident dated 28.05.2022, arising out of
and in the course of employment, resulted in the death of
the deceased?
(iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation?
If so, to what extent and from whom?
4. On Issue No. 1, the Commissioner held that the
deceased was employed as a driver by respondent no. 4, a
skilled worker, and held a valid driving licence. The
Insurance Company failed to prove otherwise. On Issue
No. 2, the Commissioner recorded that the accident
occurred in the course of employment and that the death
was a direct result thereof. On Issue No. 3, since the
vehicle was insured with the appellant, liability to pay
compensation was fixed upon the Insurance Company.
As regards the monthly income, the Commissioner
observed that there was no reliable evidence to support
the claim of ₹20,000/- salary. Therefore, in absence of
proof, the notional income was determined on the basis of
the minimum wages for drivers notified by the State
Government at ₹10,658/- per month. The learned
Commissioner after applying Section 4(1)(a) of the Act
read with Schedule IV, for the deceased aged 39 years
(relevant factor 186.90), the compensation was calculated
as: (₹10,658 x50% = ₹5,329) × 186.90 = ₹9,95,990/-.
Thus, an award of ₹9,95,990/- with 12% annual interest
was passed.
2025:UHC:8107
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company would submit that the award was
unsustainable as the deceased's licence was invalid
without "hill endorsement," thereby constituting a
fundamental breach of policy conditions. Reliance was
placed upon Rule 195 of the Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles
Rules, 2011.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants
submitted that Rule 195 applies only to public service
vehicles and goods vehicles and has no application to a
light motor vehicle. He relied on judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, including New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
v. Jagdish [(2008) 9 SCC 661], and of this Court in New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kala Devi (A.O. No. 139 of
2005), to contend that absence of a hill endorsement does
not invalidate a licence to drive a light motor vehicle.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
8. The objection raised by the appellant regarding
the hill endorsement is misconceived. Rule 195 of the
Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011, by its plain
language, applies only to public service vehicles and
goods vehicles on hill roads. The vehicle in question was
a light motor vehicle, which, under Section 2(21) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, includes transport vehicles
2025:UHC:8107
with gross vehicle weight not exceeding 7500 kgs. The
deceased possessed a valid LMV (Transport) licence.
Therefore, the licence cannot be treated invalid merely
because it lacked a hill endorsement.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jagdish (supra) has categorically
held that insurers cannot repudiate liability on hyper-
technical grounds when the driver possessed a valid
licence to drive the class of vehicle involved in the
accident. Similarly, in Kala Devi (supra), this Court has
held that absence of a hill endorsement does not affect
the validity of the licence for driving LMVs.
10. On facts, the relationship of employer and
employee, the accident in the course of employment, and
subsistence of the insurance policy stand established.
The Commissioner rightly relied on minimum wages in
the absence of salary proof and applied the correct factor
from Schedule IV.
11. In view of the above, the impugned award is
well-reasoned and justified. There is no scope for
interference. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
12. No order as to costs.
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
18.09.2025
Mamta
