The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the employer-employee relationship and the occurrence of the accident during the course of employment, along with the burden of proof on the insurance company regarding the absence of a valid driving license and the employer's negligence.

JUDGMENT :

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by Shriram Insurance Co. Ltd. aggrieved by the award dated 29.09.2015 passed in W.C.No.07 of 2012 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dharmavaram.

2. The brief facts of the case are that wife and children of the deceased filed W.C.No.07 of 2012 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased due to his involvement in an accident. The deceased worked as driver of van bearing No.AP 02 W 4863, belongs to opposite party No.1. On 26.09.2011, the deceased drove the vehicle loaded with oranges from Battalapalli to Devanahalli on Bangalore-Ballery road. In the middle of the journey, the deceased stopped the vehicle on the extreme left side of the road and went to Dhaba and while he was returning from the dhaba, rider of scooter bearing No.KA 04 1029 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained serious head injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Devanahallil hospital and from there he was referred to NIMHANS, Bangalore. The deceased died on the way to NIMHANS hospital. As the deceased died during the course of employment under opposite party No.1, the present claim is filed.

3. Opposite party No.1 remained exparte before the learned Commissioner.

4. Opposite party No.2 filed counter denying age, employment of the deceased and employer and employee relationship between the deceased and opposite party No.1. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the claim application.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, Commissioner framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the deceased was an employee as per the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with the accident arising out of and in course of his employment resulting to death?

2. What was the age of the deceased employee at the time of accident?

3. What were the wages paid to the deceased employee at the time of accident?

4. What is the amount of compensation payable?

5. Who are liable to pay compensation?

6. On behalf of the applicants, applicant No.1 was examined as AW1 besides examining cleaner of van, who is also witness as AW2 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. Employee of the Insurance Company was examined as RW1 and Ex.B1 is filed through her.

7. After considering the evidence adduced on either side, Commissioner passed the award directing opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs.4,84,375/- within thirty days from the date of the award by way of demand draft. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by opposite party No.2.

8. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 3.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Commissioner failed to appreciate that applicants are not entitled for compensation under W.C. Act as they failed to prove employer and employee relationship either by examining opposite party No.1 or by adducing cogent evidence. He would submit that opposite part No.1 failed to file counter and give evidence, as such it is not established that deceased was workman under owner of the vehicle and died in the course of employment.

10. He would further submit that applicants failed to prove age, income and occupation of the deceased and the compensation was awarded without there being any evidence and by wrongly assessing monthly wage as Rs.5,183.25/-.

11. Learned counsel would further submit that the deceased was not holding any driving license to drive van and it is basic duty of the employer or the applicants who claim that the deceased was working as driver of the insured vehicle. He would further submit that the owner of van did not choose to contest the claim before the Commissioner and did not adduce any evidence that deceased was under his employment.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that insurance company can be made liable to pay the compensation only if the conditions of