Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose, Krishna Murari, JJ.
BELI RAM – Appellant
Versus
RAJINDER KUMAR & ANR. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7220-7221 OF 2011
Decided On : 23-09-2020
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – Sections 3 and 4 – Permanent disability suffered in course of employment while driving Truck – Compensation of Rs.1,61,777/- alongwith 9% interest awarded by Commissioner – Compensation amount was mulled on to second respondent as Insurer, while interest was directed to be paid by appellant (Owner) – Once basic care of verifying driving licence has to be taken by employer, though a detailed enquiry may not be necessary, owner of vehicle would know validity of driving licence as is set out in licence itself – It cannot be said that thereafter he can wash his hands off responsibility of not checking up whether driver has renewed licence – It is not a case where a licence has not been renewed for a short period of time – Licence in instant case, has not been renewed for a period of three years and that too in respect of commercial vehicle like a truck – Appellant (Owner) showed gross negligence in verifying the same – Beneficiary is driver himself who was negligent – If driving licence is not renewed within thirty (30) days, driver neither had an effective driving licence nor can he said to be duly licensed – Driver who permits his licence to expire and does not get it renewed till after accident, cannot claim that it should be deemed that licence is renewed retrospectively – While protecting rights of claimants by asking insurance company to deposit amount, recovery of same from insured would follow as sympathy can only be for victim of accident – Right which has to be protected, is of victim and not owner of vehicle – Appellant has to bear responsibility and consequent liability of permitting driver to drive with an expired licence over a period of three (3) years – It is clearly a case of lack of reasonable care to see that employee gets his licence renewed – Appeals dismissed. [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 149(2)(a)(ii)] (Paras 15, 16, 20, 21, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Sole question of law for consideration in the present appeals is whether in case of a valid driving licence, if the licence has expired, insured is absolved of its liability.
Findings of Court:
We are conscious of the fact that in the present case the beneficiary is the driver himself who was negligent but then we are not dealing with a claim under the MV Act but under the Compensation Act, which provides for immediate succour, not really based on a fault theory with a limited compensation as specified being paid. We are, thus, in the present proceedings not required to decide the share of the burden between the appellant as the owner and the first respondent as the driver as may happen in a proceeding under the MV Act.
Result : Appeals dismissed
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. The sole question of law for consideration in the present appeals is whether in case of a valid driving licence, if the licence has expired, the insured is absolved of its liability.
2. The facts are in a very narrow compass. The first respondent herein, met with an accident on 20.5.1999 while driving a truck owned by the appellant herein, under whom he was gainfully employed. The consequence for the first respondent was 20 per cent permanent disability. The first respondent herein filed a petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Compensation Act’) before the Commissioner, Sadar, Bilaspur on 17.2.1999 seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, impleading the appellant and second respondent herein – the insurance company which had insured the vehicle. These proceedings resulted in an award by the Commissioner on 8.12.2004 granting Rs. 94,464/- for the injuries suffered and Rs.67,313/- towards medical expenses of the first respondent. The amounts awarded were to carry interest @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment. The compensation amount was mulled on to the second respondent as insurer, while the interest was directed to be paid by the appellant herein.
3. The parties to the proceedings all filed appeals aggrieved by different aspects of the award. An intrinsic part of the consideration by the High Court was the issue raised about the validity of the driving licence of the first respondent at the time of the accident. The driving licence was endorsed by the Superintendent of R&LA Office, Udaipur but the licence expired on 6.9.1996 and there was no endorsement for renewal thereafter. Thus, the first respondent was driving the vehicle as the driver of the appellant herein for almost three years without the licence being renewed.
4. The aforesaid aspect of the non-validity of the driving licence weighed with the High Court while passing the impugned judgment dated 3.3.2009, absolving the insurance company of any liability and fastening the same upon the appellant herein on account of there being a material breach of the insurance policy.
5. The High Court, after the aforesaid finding took note of Section 4 of the Compensation Act, more specifically the following aspect:
“4. Amount of compensation –
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:-
| (a) Where death results from the injury | An amount equal to fifty per cent of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor; or An amount of eighty thousand, whichever is more; |
| (b) Where permanent total disability results from the injury | An amount equal to sixty per cent of the monthly wages of the injured workman multiplied by the relevant factor, or An amount of ninety thousand rupees, whichever is more. |
Explanation I.-- For the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b)," relevant factor", in relation to a workman means the factor specified in the second column of Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of that Schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the completed years of the age of the workman on his last birthday immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fell due.”
6. On consideration of the aforesaid provision, the High Court opined that there was no provision under the Compensation Act for payment of medical expenditure incurred by the claimant for treatment. The accident having taken place in the year 1999, the monthly wages stated to be Rs.4,500/-, it was found that the maximum amount of wages permissible under the Compensation Act for determining the compensation could be Rs.2,000/-. Compensation was liable to be paid within thirty (30) days of the accident and the owner could have r
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
