Unknown vs Bhakti Ram And Another on 18 February, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                      2025:UHC:10951
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
              Appeal from Order No.383 of 2012
                       18th February, 2026

Dev Bhoomi Construction Pvt. Ltd.               .............Appellant

                               Versus

Bhakti Ram and another                       ...........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. R.P. Nauityal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Prashant Khanna, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

This Appeal from Order has been preferred under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1923"), assailing the judgment and award dated 18.06.2012 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Tehri Garhwal, New Tehri in Claim Petition No.15 of 2009, whereby the claim petition filed by respondent no.1 was allowed and compensation of ₹5,46,560/- along with simple interest at 10 per cent per annum, payable upon failure to deposit the amount within thirty days, was awarded against the present appellant-owner of the vehicle. The appellant seeks setting aside of the judgment on the grounds that the liability ought to have been fastened upon the insurer and that various findings of the learned Commissioner suffers from errors of law and fact.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant, Bhakti Ram, filed a petition on 11.11.2009

2025:UHC:10951 asserting that his son, Manish Kumar, aged about 22 years, was employed as a driver of Vehicle No.UA- 07R-8179, owned by the present appellant and insured with respondent no.2. It was submitted that in the intervening night of 20/21 March 2009, at about 01:30 A.M., the said vehicle met with an accident near village Bhvint on the Rishikesh - Srinagar motor road, causing the instantaneous death of Manish Kumar. An accident report was lodged at Police Station Devprayag, and post mortem was conducted on 22.03.2009 at Government Hospital, Narendranagar. The claimant pleaded that the deceased worked as a driver earning ₹4,000/- per month and additionally received ₹50/- per day as food allowance, making his monthly income approximately ₹5,500/-. The claimant asserted that he was dependent upon the income of the deceased and sought compensation under the Act of 1923.

3. The claimant pleaded that his son Manish Kumar was employed as a driver on vehicle no. UA- 07R-8179 owned by the present appellant. He asserted that the deceased, aged about 22 years, was earning ₹4,000/-, per month, along with ₹50/- per day as food allowance, and contributed substantially to the household income. It was further stated that the deceased was healthy, fully capable of driving heavy vehicles, and was the only earning member upon whom the claimant-an elderly parent, was entirely dependent. The claimant emphasised that the accident occurred solely during the course of

2025:UHC:10951 employment and that required intimation was sent to the employer, and that prior to filing the claim petition, a legal notice was also issued seeking compensation, to which no response was received.

4. The owner/appellant, in his written statement, accepted that Manish Kumar was engaged as a driver on his dumper and admitted that the accident occurred during the course of employment. He, however, asserted that the deceased was paid a salary of ₹3,500/-, per month, and that all documents of the vehicle were valid on the date of the accident. He contended that since the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.2, the entire liability, if any, should fall upon the insurer. The appellant also emphasised that the deceased possessed a driving licence, which the employer had verified at the time of engagement. According to him, the learned Commissioner erred in law in fastening liability upon the employer despite existence of a valid policy and despite absence of any pleading or proof by the insurer that the employer was aware of or had connived in any alleged irregularity in the licence.

5. The insurance company denied the claim completely and asserted that the petition was not maintainable in view of non-compliance of the statutory requirements under Sections 10 and 22 of the Act of 1923. It further contended that the deceased did not possess a valid heavy vehicle driving licence and that the route permit, fitness certificate and pollution certificate of the vehicle were defective,

2025:UHC:10951 and that there were material breaches of policy conditions absolving the insurer of liability. The insurer argued that unless the claimant proved valid licence, valid vehicle documents, and absence of breach, the insurer could not be fastened with liability under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, or under the terms of the workmen's compensation policy.

6. Based on the pleadings of the learned Commissioner, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether Manish Kumar, son of the plaintiff was employed as a driver on truck (dumper) number UA-07-R-

8179 of the opposite party no. 1, owner of the vehicle, Devbhoomi Communication Pvt. Ltd., on 21-03-2009?

2. Whether the driver Manish Kumar died on the spot during the course of his employment when the said vehicle met with an accident near village Bhvint on Rishikesh- Srinagar motor road on 21.03.2009 at 01:30 A.M.?

3. What was the age and salary of the deceased driver, Manish Kumar, on the date of the accident?

4. Whether all vehicle documents (RC/permit, fitness/ insurance, etc.) were valid on the date of the accident, and did the driver have a valid driving license?

5. Is the plaintiff entitled to any compensation from the defendants, if yes, who is responsible for paying the compensation?

On Issue No.1 the learned Commissioner relied upon the unequivocal admission of the owner in his written statement wherein he categorically stated that the deceased was employed as a driver on vehicle no. UA07R-8179. The learned Commissioner also noted that the claimant's testimony and documents such as

2025:UHC:10951 the accident report and notice to the employer corroborated this fact. The insurer's denial, being merely for want of knowledge, did not rebut the owner's admission. Accordingly, the learned Commissioner held that employment stood proved and the issue was decided in favor of the claimant.

On Issue No.2 the learned Commissioner relied on the accident report of Police Station Devprayag, the Panchayatnama, and the post mortem report, all of which confirmed that on the intervening night of 20/21 March 2009, the dumper fell into a gorge near village Bhvint, resulting in the instantaneous death of the driver Manish Kumar. The owner himself admitted the occurrence of the accident in his reply. The learned Commissioner thus held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and accordingly decided in claimant's favour.

On Issue No.3, the learned Commissioner considered the family register and the school transfer certificate which indicated the deceased's age as approximately 20 years on the date of accident. Regarding income, the learned Commissioner noted the claimant's assertion of ₹4,000/-, per month, plus allowance, and the owner's admission of ₹3,500/-, per month, but in the absence of documentary proof and keeping in view the statutory ceiling under Section 4 of the Act, it fixed the notional monthly income at ₹4,000/-. The learned Commissioner therefore held that the deceased was 20 years old and earning ₹4,000/-, per

2025:UHC:10951 month.

On Issue No.4 was decided partly against the insurer and partly against the owner. The learned Commissioner accepted that the vehicle possessed valid registration, fitness certificate, permit and insurance on the date of accident, as supported by official documents filed by the owner. Regarding licence, the learned Commissioner noted that the deceased held a valid LMV licence duly verified by the Licensing Authority but did not possess a proved valid HMV licence. The HMV licence filed by the owner was found unverified, and the insurer's investigator reported it to be fake. The learned Commissioner held that permitting a 20-year-old LMV-licence holder to drive a heavy dumper constituted negligence attributable to the employer. Since breach was created by the employer, the insurer could not be saddled with liability.

On Issue No.5, the learned Commissioner concluded that the claimant was entitled to compensation as the accident occurred during employment and due to no fault of the deceased. The learned Commissioner held that, because the deceased did not possess a valid licence to drive the heavy vehicle, the liability could not be shifted to the insurer. Applying the statutory formula under Section 4 and Schedule IV for a workman aged 20 earning ₹4,000/- per month, the learned Commissioner assessed compensation at ₹4,48,000/- and added simple interest for 2 years and 9 months at eight per cent, totalling ₹5,46,560/-.

2025:UHC:10951 Liability was fixed solely upon the owner.

7. After hearing the parties concerned and after perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings returned by the learned Commissioner do not warrant interference in an appeal under Section 30(1) of the Act of 1923. The jurisdiction of this Court is confined to examining substantial questions of law, and unless the conclusions of the Commissioner are shown to be perverse, unsupported by evidence, or in derogation of settled legal principles, the appellate court cannot reassess the factual matrix.

8. In the present case, the Commissioner has recorded clear findings, supported by evidence and reinforced by the admissions of the employer, that the deceased Manish Kumar was employed as a driver on the offending vehicle and that the accident occurred squarely in the course of employment. The documents on record, including the police accident report, Panchayatnama, and post-mortem report, as well as the employer's own pleading, leave no room for doubt on this aspect. These findings are purely factual and have been arrived at upon proper appreciation of evidence; they therefore do not give rise to any question of law.

9. The primary challenge of the appellant pertains to fastening liability upon the owner instead of the insurer on the ground that the deceased did not possess a valid HMV licence. The Commissioner found, based on the materials produced, that

2025:UHC:10951 although the deceased held an LMV licence, the HMV licence filed by the employer was unverified and was reported to be fake by the insurer's investigator. The Commissioner further recorded that an LMV-licence holder aged 20 years had been permitted by the employer to drive a heavy dumper. This amounted to a breach of policy conditions attributable to the employer. The legal position applicable to this situation stands crystallised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297, held that an insurer, to avoid liability, must prove not merely a breach but that such breach was committed with the knowledge and consent of the insured. The Supreme Court emphasised that where the breach is directly attributable to the insured, the insurer cannot be compelled to indemnify. The Commissioner's finding that the employer permitted an unqualified person to drive a heavy vehicle falls squarely within this principle. While setting out the general principles governing the insurer's burden to establish a policy breach attributable to the insured, the Hon'ble Court held as under:

"49. Such a breach on the part of the insured must be established by the insurer to show that not only the insured used or caused or permitted to be used the vehicle in breach of the Act but also that the damage he suffered flowed from the breach.

51. It is trite that where the insurers, relying upon the provisions of violation of law by the assured, take an exception to pay the assured or a third party, they must prove a wilful violation of the law by the assured. In some cases violation of criminal law, particularly, violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act may result in absolving the insurers but, the same may not necessarily hold good in the case of a third party. In any event, the

2025:UHC:10951 exception applies only to acts done intentionally or "so recklessly as to denote that the assured did not care what the consequences of his act might be".

10. Similarly, in the case of Pappu & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that when a driver does not hold the requisite licence for the class of vehicle driven at the time of accident, and the insured fails to establish that he had exercised due care in verifying and ensuring the driver's competence, the insurer may be absolved. The ratio of Pappu (supra) supports the conclusion that if the insured/owner failed to verify the HMV licence or permitted an LMV-licence holder to drive a heavy vehicle, the liability cannot be shifted to the insurer. The reasoning adopted by the Commissioner is consistent with the ratio of these decisions. The Hon'ble Court in the case of Pappu (supra) reiterated the principle that, in cases where the insurer alleges breach of licence conditions, the initial burden lies on the owner to prove the foundational facts. The Hon'ble Court held as under:

"12. This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 has noticed the defences available to the insurance company under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company is entitled to take a defence that the offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorised person or the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The onus would shift on the insurance company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time."

2025:UHC:10951

11. This Court finds no perversity in the learned Commissioner's conclusion that the insurer successfully established breach of policy conditions attributable to the employer. The question of whether the licence was valid, whether the vehicle documents were in order, and whether the employer permitted the deceased to drive despite lacking the requisite licence are all questions of fact. The Commissioner has addressed each of these on the basis of evidence, and none of these findings are shown to be unsupported or illegal so as to warrant interference.

12. As regards the computation of compensation, the Commissioner applied Section 4 and Schedule IV of the Act, fixed the monthly income at ₹4,000/- keeping in view the statutory ceiling and the owner's own admission of salary, and adopted the correct age factor for a 20-year-old workman. The quantification is strictly in accordance with statutory provisions and does not disclose any legal infirmity. The award of simple interest is also in conformity with the mandate of the Act.

13. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal principles laid down in Swaran Singh (supra) and Pappu & Ors. (supra), this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. The findings of the learned Commissioner are based on evidence, legally sound, and call for no interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 30(1) of the Act.

2025:UHC:10951

14. The Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed. The award dated 18.06.2012 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Tehri Garhwal, in Claim Petition No.15 of 2009 is affirmed. The liability to pay the compensation amount of ₹5,46,560/- along with simple interest shall remain upon the appellant/owner as directed by the Commissioner. The amount of compensation deposited with the learned Commissioner shall be released immediately in favour of the respondent- claimant no.1 along with interest accrued thereon if any. Due credit be given to the amount already received by the respondent no.1-claimant.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 18.02.2026 R.Dang