The court affirmed that a non-transport driving license suffices for operating a transport vehicle, and the insurance company remains liable despite vehicle transfer.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present C.M.A is filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 questioning the Order dated 03.06.2011 in W.C.No.29 of 2008 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

2. The O.P.No.2-Insurance Company is the Appellant herein.

3. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows:-

The Claimants are parents and siblings of one Arlabu Maheswari (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). The deceased used to attend labour work and assisting her family. On 20.10.2006, the deceased was engaged as a labourer by O.P.No.1 along with other labourers for the purpose of loading and unloading on the Tractor & Trailer bearing Nos.AP-30-T-4106 & AP-30-B-7203. While so, when the deceased and other labourers were being taken in the tractor and trailer on the said date, the vehicle met with an accident near Dabbadabalanna Garuvu, opposite Pothurajugudi Kujjali of Paderu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and turned turtle due to negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, as a result, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. A criminal case was registered by the S.H.O. Paderu P.S., vide Cr.No.75 of 2006 under Sections 304-A, 338, 337 IPC against the driver of the vehicle.

4. As the accident occurred in the course of employment while the deceased was working under O.P.No.1 upon his instructions and as the Tractor & Trailer were insured with O.P.No.2-Insurance Company vide Policy No.621200/31/05/04711, the claim application was filed by the parents and the siblings of the deceased seeking compensation of Rs.5,09,355/-.

5. O.P.No.1 remained absent and was set ex parte.

6. O.P.No.2-Insurance Company filed its counter disputing the claim regarding jural relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and O.P.No.1/owner, wages and the accident occurred while the deceased was travelling in the trailer bearing No. AP-30-V-7203 by sitting on the load of stones in violation of terms and conditions of the policy. It was also pleaded that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger on the tractor and trailer and therefore the Claimants are not entitled for compensation.

7. An additional counter was also filed by O.P.No.2-Insurance Company disputing that the driver of the tractor and trailer holds LMV non-transport vehicle license and the driver must possess an endorsement of tractor and trailer by the authorities.

8. On the basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:-

1) Whether the deceased is a workman under the provisions of W.C. Act and there exists employee-employer relation and death arose out of and in the course of employment?

2) What is the age and wage of the deceased at the time of the accident?

3) Whether the applicant is entitled for any amount of compensation? If so what amount of compensation the applicants are entitled and who are liable to pay compensation?

9. In the course of enquiry, the Claimant No.1 i.e. the father of the deceased was examined as A.W.1. In his chief examination, A.W.1 deposed that on a fateful day i.e. on 20.10.2006 in the morning hours, his deceased daughter was engaged as labourer by O.P.No.1/owner in the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP-30-T-4106 & AP-30-B-7203 for loading and unloading and on that day at about 1.00 p.m, when the vehicle reached near Dabbadabalanna Garuvu, opposite to Pothuraju Gudi, Kujjali of Paderu Mandal, the vehicle turned turtle, fell into the slope out of the negligent driving of the driver, due to which, his deceased daughter fell down and sustained injuries an