JUDGMENT :

(Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the impugned order dated 18.03.2010 in W.C.No.10 of 2006 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ananthapur.

2. Appellant herein is the Opposite Party No.2.Respondent Nos., 1 and 2 herein are the applicant and Opposite Party No.1 before the learned Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Commissioner.

Brief Facts of the case:

3. Applicant approached Commissioner seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against Opposite Parties 1 and 2, stating that he met with an accident on 22.12.2004 at about 1.00P.M., during the course of his employment. Applicant worked as driver of Elcher Van bearing No.AP-02- U-5146 under Opposite Party No.1.On 20.12.2004 at about 1.00P.M.,during the course of his employment, the applicant was driving the van and when it reached near Garladinne Bus stand, dashed against a bus in attempt to avoid an accident with auto, as a result of which he sustained fracture of tibia and fibula right leg and fracture on left thigh and received multiple injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Ananthapur and took treatment for more than one year. Being an inpatient under the treatment of specialised doctors, he was advised to take bed rest at home by following medication. Applicant was aged about 27 years and he was getting monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- and claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

4. Having heard both the counsel and on appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.2,78,102/-.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the Opposite Party No.2 preferred the present appealon the ground that the learned Commissioner failed to see that the driver had no valid and effective licence and a subsequent renewal does not cure the defect. Opposite Party No.2 further contended that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation under Section 149 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT and that the learned Commissioner ignored the fact that though there is evidence that the disability and loss of earning capacity is 30%,he fixed at 75% and thereby exceeded his power under Section 4 Explanation II (ii) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The further contention is that the award is not in accordance with Section 4 Schedule-II (ii) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Though the insured has violated the terms of the policy, the compensation was awarded.

6. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the material on record.

7. Though the learned counsel for the appellant did not frame substantial questions of law in the Memo of Appeal, it appears that they intend to challenge the impugned order on the point that when the driver had no valid licence, there cannot be any liability to the insurance company and that a subsequent renewal of the driving licence does not cure the defect. Another point being as to assessing the disability at 75% though the medical record shows that it is 30%.

Existence of valid and effective license:

8. The main attack against the impugned order is that the driver had no valid and effective licence as on the date of the accident. The vehicle involved in the present case is Elcher van bearing No.AP-02-U-5146. Opposite Party No.1 did not choose to appear before the learned Commissioner in spite of receiving notice and he was set