[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
AO/389/2022 on 3 January, 2026
2026:UHC:78
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
A.O. No.389 of 2022
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the
appellant.
Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, Advocate
for respondent nos.2 & 3.
Ms. Babita Jalal, Advocate for
respondent no.4.
2. This Appeal from Order has been
preferred by the appellant-Insurance
Company assailing the judgment and
award dated 27.07.2022, passed by the
learned Employees' Compensation
Commissioner/Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chamoli, in E.C.A. No.11 of 2019,
whereby the learned Commissioner has
awarded compensation to the tune of
₹8,59,280/- in favour of the claimants.
3. The principal ground urged by the
appellant is that the deceased workman,
who was employed as a driver with
respondent no.4 (employer/vehicle
owner), was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence on the date of
the accident. It is contended that the
driving licence of the deceased stood
suspended for the period from
29.09.2018 to 28.12.2018 by the
Regional Transport Officer, Rishikesh,
and the fatal accident occurred on
31.10.2018, during the subsistence of
the said suspension. According to the
appellant, this amounted to a breach of
the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy, absolving the insurer of
its liability under the Employees'
Compensation Act, 1923.
2026:UHC:78
4. Learned counsel for the appellant
contends that the absence of a valid
driving licence constitutes a breach of
policy conditions, absolving it of liability
under the Employees' Compensation Act,
1923. Reliance is placed on the
statement of D.W.-1, indicating that
suspension notice was dispatched via
post and recorded in the department's
dispatch register.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for
respondent no.4 submits that neither the
owner nor the deceased had actual
knowledge of the suspension. D.W-1's
statement corroborates lack of
awareness, as relied upon by the
Commissioner. The Commissioner
correctly held that no evidence
demonstrates notice of suspension to the
employer or deceased. It is further
submitted that the burden to prove
conscious breach of policy conditions lies
squarely upon the insurer, which burden
has not been discharged in the present
case.
6. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and upon perusal of the
record, this Court finds that the learned
Employees' Compensation Commissioner
has rightly relied upon the statement of
P.W.-2 and recorded a categorical finding
that no information regarding the
suspension of the driving licence of the
deceased was available either with
respondent no.4 (the employer) or with
the deceased himself. Admittedly, no
documentary evidence has been
produced by the Insurance Company to
establish service of the suspension order
or notice upon the employer or the
deceased. Mere entry in the
departmental dispatch register or
2026:UHC:78
assertion of dispatch does not constitute
proof of service or knowledge is
insufficient.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Pappu & others Vs. Vinod Kumar
Lamba & another, reported (2018) 3 SCC
208, wherein it has been held that the
burden of proof lies on the insurer to
establish conscious breach, and mere
production of licensing authority records
without proof of knowledge is
insufficient.
8. Applying the aforesaid settled legal
position to the facts of the present case,
this Court finds no perversity or illegality
in the impugned award. The appellant-
Insurance Company has failed to
establish that respondent no.4 or the
deceased had any knowledge of the
suspension of the driving licence or that
the employer willfully permitted the
deceased to drive the vehicle despite
such knowledge.
9. Accordingly, this Court holds that
the Insurance Company has failed to
discharge its statutory burden, and the
learned Employees' Compensation
Commissioner has rightly fastened
liability upon the insurer.
10. The Appeal from Order, being
devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed
and is hereby dismissed.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
03.01.2026
Arpan
ARPAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c048536544
5e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,
JAISWAL
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5
109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN
JAISWAL
Date: 2026.01.03 15:51:17 +05'30'
