The entitlement of a worker to drive a vehicle, as defined by the Motor Vehicles Act, and the focus of the Workmen's Compensation Act on the workman's status and employer-employee relationship were central legal principles established in the judgment.

( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of a claim preferred by the legal heirs of a workman who died in the course of his employment. M. f. a. no. 1155 of 1992 is preferred by the insurance company disowning their liability whereas m. f. a. no. 1333 of 1992 is preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased workman claiming enhancement.

( 2 ) THE deceased workman was employed as a driver by the employer to drive his vehicle. While he was driving an alwyn nissan vehicle cak 2839 belonging to the employer on 27-1-1989, it was involved in an accident resulting in his death. This fact is admitted. The legal heirs claimed that he was earning wages at Rs. 1,000/- per month and bata at Rs. 20/- per day. Compensation was claimed on the said basis. The claim petition was preferred on 26-7-1989 before the commissioner for workmen's compensation. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation.

( 3 ) WHILE the employment of the worker was admitted, the main contest was whether the driver was entitled to drive the particular type of vehicle. This contention is raised in this behalf by, of course and as usual, the insurance company. What is contended by them is that the worker had only a licence to drive a "light motor vehicle" (l. m. v. for short) and the vehicle driven was a "medium goods vehicle" which he was not entitled to drive and, therefore, the workman was not "duly licensed" to drive the vehicle. According to them, alwyn nissan vehicle is a goods carriage coming under the category of medium goods vehicle and, therefore, a licensee to drive light motor vehicle cannot drive the said vehicle and that therefore, there is a breach of condition of the insurance policy. Hence according to the insurance company, in view of section 96 (2) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, they are not liable to indemnify the amount awarded. The relevant clause in the insurance policy reads as follows:"persons or classes of person entitled to drive. The insured. Any other person provided that he is in the insured's employ and is driving on his order or with his permission. Provided that the person driving holds valid driving licence at the time of the accident or had held a permanent driving licence (other than a learner's licence) and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence". The entire contentions based on the above clause and as now raised is contained in the pleading in this behalf made by the insurance company and is confined to the following statement. Para-3 of the written arguments, filed by the insurance company before the commissioner for workmen's compensation, reads as under: "3. It is admitted fact that the deceased syed ismail had driving licence for driving only autorickshaw and later on, he had obtained licence to drive a light motor vehicles. Admittedly, the vehicle which was driven by the deceased at the time of accident was a goods vehicle. The deceased syed ismail had no driving licence to drive a goods vehicle". The contention, referred to above, is elaborated in the grounds of appeal preferred before this court as also at the time of arguments.

( 4 ) THE commissioner referred to the contention andover-ruled the same. He held that the insurance company is liable. The commissiorer held that the salary of a driver as notified under the shops and commercial establishment act is Rs. 505. 25 + Rs. 46. 80 and on the basis, adopting the factor of 209. 98 (the age of the deceased being 30), he awarded Rs. 45,926-00. The commissioner also imposed penalty on the insurance company under section 4-a of the act. In the above appeal miscellaneous first appeal no. 1155 of 1992, the insurance company has challenged the finding regarding their liability as also the imposition of penalty.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the insurance company invited my attention to section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deals with various categories of driving licences. He states that sub-section (2)