Back
2023 Supreme(AP) 1303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.
Bheemavarapu Swapna Kumar - Appellant
Versus
B.Chinna Rao - Respondent
C.M.A. No. 322 of 2008
Decided On : 11-09-2023
Jayanti S.C.Sekhar, Advocate, A.Jayanti, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of transport endorsement to a driving license, in the context of a motor vehicle accident case, may not constitute a fundamental breach of the insurance policy, and the Insurance Company can be held liable to pay compensation.
Headnote:
Workmen's Compensation Act - Motor Vehicle Accident - Sec. 30, Workmen's Compensation Act - Sec. 2(21), Sec. 2(15), Sec. 2(48), Sec. 10(2)(d), Sec. 10(2)(e), Sec. 10(2)(f), Sec. 10(2)(g), Sec. 10(2)(h), Sec. 149(2), Motor Vehicles Act - Light Motor Vehicle, Transport Vehicle - The court discussed the employee-employer relationship, occurrence of the accident, age of the deceased, and the validity of the driving license in the context of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act. The court referred to legal provisions such as Sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and relevant case laws to determine the liability of the Insurance Company and the owner in a motor vehicle accident case.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was against the order in a Workmen's Compensation case related to the death of a driver in a motor vehicle accident. The court analyzed the evidence, including the employee-employer relationship, occurrence of the accident, and the validity of the deceased's driving license. The substantial question of law raised was whether the Insurance Company could be exonerated from liability due to the deceased's lack of proper endorsement to his driving license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employee-employer relationship and occurrence of the accident were proved. It also determined the age of the deceased and the minimum wages for a worker employed in public motor transport. The court held that the deceased's driving license was valid for the vehicle involved in the accident, and the lack of transport endorsement was not a fundamental breach of the insurance policy.
Issues: The issues involved the employee-employer relationship, occurrence of the accident, validity of the deceased's driving license, and the liability of the Insurance Company and the owner in a motor vehicle accident case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, legal interpretations of driving license requirements, and relevant case laws to determine the liability of the Insurance Company and the owner in the motor vehicle accident case. It emphasized that the lack of transport endorsement to the deceased's driving license was not a fundamental breach of the insurance policy.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, modifying the impugned order to hold the Insurance Company jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with the owner to the applicants.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order in W.C.No.36 of 2006 dtd. 20/5/2007 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam. Appellants herein were the applicants, Respondent Nos.1 and
2. are the opposite parties before the learned Commissioner. 2. Applicants are the dependents' of the deceased late Bheemavarapu Sathyanarayana who died in a motor vehicle accident on 7/1/2005, while discharging his duties as a driver to the auto of Opposite Party No.1.
3. The Opposite Party No.1/Owner of the vehicle was set exparte before the learned Commissioner. Opposite Party No.2 filed counter denying all the averments made in the petition interalia contending that applicants have to prove the existence of the employee - employer relationship between the deceased and Opposite Party No.1 and that they have to prove occurrence of accident out of and in the course of the employment, age, wage of the deceased.
4. During the course of the enquiry, Applicant No.1 who is the wife of the deceased was examined as A.W.1, Mr. Bala Raju who is the brother of the deceased was examined as A.W.2.
5. Opposite Party No.2 also filed additional counter stating that the deceased holds driving license for light motor vehicle (Non-Transport). The auto being passenger transport vehicle, he should have Service Badge or Transport endorsement which is mandatory. In support of their claim, Opposite Party No.2 examined its company Assistant Manager as R.W.1. One Animireddy Sanyasirao is examined as R.W.2, who is a Senior Assistant in R.T.O Office, Visakhapatnam. Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Exs.R-1 to R-4 are the documents marked on behalf of the respective parties.
6. On appreciation of the evidence on record and after hearing both the learned counsel, the learned Commissioner held that issue of employee -employer relationship and occurrence of the accident, during the course of the employment are proved by the applicants through their evidence coupled with F.I.R which is registered relating to the accident. Learned Commissioner also concluded about the age of the deceased as 25 years. Taking into consideration, the minimum wages for the worker who employed in public motor transport an amount of Rs.3, 26, 883.00 was awarded as compensation to the applicants. However, the liability was restricted on the owner by dismissing the claim against the Insurance Company.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and a bare perusal on the memorandum of the Appeal, it appears the substantial question of law raised is as follows:
"Whether the Insurance Company can be exonerated from the liability on the ground that the deceased had no proper endorsement to his driving license to drive the light motor vehicle?"
8. Heard Sri Jayanti S. C. Sekhar, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. A. Jayanti, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
9. A perusal of Sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act makes it clear that the scope of Sec. 30 of the Act for entertaining the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner is very limited and is restricted to those that are provided in the clauses (a) to (e). Further, it clearly provides that the award of compensation passed under the Workmen's Compensation Act can be challenged in the appeal only where substantial questions of law are involved. In Shahjahan and Another v. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3133, Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that the High Court ought not decide a Sec. 30 appeal as if it is a first Appellate Court on the questions of fact.
10. On a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is indicative that the learned Commissioner has given clear findings on the following points;
a. The deceased was an employee of Opposite Party No.1 who is the owner of the vehicle. b. There exists employee - employer relationship between the deceased and Opposite Party No.1. c. The accident occurred out of and in the course of the employment. d. The a
