The employer's responsibility to ensure a valid driving license for the vehicle operator is critical; a lack of such validation can relieve the insurer from liability under the insurance policy.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok S. Kinagi, J.

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the Judgment and Award dated 05.07.2013 in WCA/SR-213/2009 passed by the Labour Officer and The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Sub Division-II, Belagavi, regarding the liability ( hereinafter referred to as “ the Commissioner”)

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

3. The claimants have filed the petition before the Labour Officer and the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation seeking a compensation of Rs. 600,000/- with interest at the rate of 18%, under section 22 of the Workmen compensation Act, 1923. It is contended that, the claimants are dependants of the deceased Ningappa Fakkirappa Bhajanavar. It is contended that, the deceased Ningappa was working as a Coolie under Respondent No. 6 herein/ Employer in a Tractor bearing Reg. No. KA-24/T-71 and Trailer No. CTW-9812. On, 09-06-2009 when the deceased was proceeding in the Tractor from Gilihosur Village, Gokak, by looking Eucalyptus Tree and on 10-06- 2009 when they came near Madamgeri village, the Driver of the said Vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner to endanger the human life and as a result caused accident near Madamgeri cross. As a result, the deceased Ningappa sustained grivious injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. It is contended that the deceased was aged about 30 years and used to earn Rs. 125 per day as daily wage from Respondent No. 1/ Employer. It is contended that the accident occurred during the course of the employment and accordingly, prays to award the compensation.

4. A notice was served on Respondent No. 1/Employer. Despite the service of notice, Respondent No. 1/ employer before the Commissioner remained absent and was placed exparte.

5. The Insurance Company filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that, the vehicle involved in the accident is made for agricultural purpose and insured under Kissan Package Policy. The deceased is the gratitious passenger. There is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is contended that the driver was not possessing a valid and effective license as of the date of the accident. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition.

6. The Commissioner, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

7. The claimants, to substantiate their claim, claimant No. 1 was examined as PW1 and 6 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Conversely, an official of Insurance Company was examined as RW1 and 4 documents were marked as RW 2-1 to RW 2-4.

8. The Commissioner, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, awarded the compensation of Rs. 3,63,965.00 and directed to pay the interest at the rate of 12% after 30 days from the date of Judgment till the same is deposited with the Commissioner. The Commissioner also directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount within a period of 30 days, before the commissioner.

9. The Insurance Company/ Respondent No. 2 before the commissioner, aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed in WCA/SR-213/2009 dated 05.07.2013 filed this Appeal.

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance company, learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel for the Owner of the vehicle/Employer.

11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the said Tractor was insured under the Kissan Package Policy and was made for the Agricultural purpose only. He submits