1. Assailing the judgment and order dated 24.08.2013 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Division II, Hubballi in WCNF No. 55/2012 appellant-insurer is before this Court.

2. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer that the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has committed an error in saddling the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company inspite of the fact that the driver of the said vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the hazardous goods. He further submitted that as per the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, in the list of hazardous goods at S. No. 1656 petroleum crude oil is classified as hazardous goods and as per Rule 9 of the said Rules, the driver carrying the hazardous goods imposed in addition to the transport license must have an endorsement to drive the hazardous goods vehicle. He further submitted that admittedly the driver of the said tanker was not holding the said endorsement. As such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. He further submitted that the Commissioner has committed an error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- per month, without there being any documents. As per the amendment to Section 4, the maximum amount has been stated and the said amount has to be fixed by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, it is not that Rs. 8,000/- has to be fixed in all the cases. He further submitted by drawing the attention of this Court to Section 20 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act that the Commissioner who has passed the award is not having any qualifications as contemplated under Section 20 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. He further submitted that as per Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, before filing the claim petition, the claimant must issue notice of the accident and without being any notice, no claim for compensation shall be entertained.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the interest which has been awarded is also not correct. The said claim petition has been filed by the claimant during 2012 and the accident has taken place on 26.12.2010. He further submitted by relying upon the decision in the case of V. Kishan Rao vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital and Another, 2011 Kant. MAC 556 (SC), when a judgment is rendered by ignoring the provisions of the statute, then under such circumstances, it is the statute which will prevail over the said decisions. He further submitted that in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited, the said aspect has not been kept into view while delivering the said decision. As such, the said decision is not applicable to the present facts of the case on hand. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-claimants vehemently argued and submitted that though Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it stipulates that the driver who is driving must have a driving licence to drive the hazardous vehicle. But as on the date of the accident, the said tanker was an empty tanker and the said provision of law is not applicable to the present facts of the case on hand. He further submitted that when the accident occurred, there was no petroleum product in the tanker. Under the said circumstances, the contention of the insurer cannot be acceptable. In order to substantiate his argument, he relied upon the decision in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Velumurugan, 2016 ACJ 475. He further submitted that the appellant-insurer has not taken up any defence or filed objections stating that no notice has been issued and no qualifications are there to the Commissioner. For the first time in the appeal, said contentions have been raised. He further submitted that the said petition has b