Employers must ensure employees hold valid driving licenses; failure results in insurer's liability being voided under policy conditions.

JUDGMENT :

K.MANMADHA RAO, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the Head Master of the school/owner of the vehicle to set aside the judgment and award dated 24.01.2015 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees Compensation at Mangalore in ECA .No.01/2014 (for short 'the Commissioner/Authority').

2. The claimants have filed the petition under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (‘the ECA ’ for short) for grant of Rs.13,00,000/- along with interest at 12% per annum on the account of the death of the driver of the school bus during the course of his employment.

3. The brief facts of the case are that:

The petitioners/claimants contend that deceased Badruddin, S/o Hasanabba, husband of claimant No.1, was employed as the driver of the school bus bearing Registration No.KA-37/3493 belonging to respondent No.1/Head Master of the school/owner of the vehicle. On 14.08.2008, at about 8.00 a.m., while driving the school bus from Balma English Medium School, Thenkulipady, Mangalore to Ulaibettu to pick up school children. While returning from Ulaibettu to Balma English Medium School at about 9.00 a.m. during the rainy season when the roadside ditch was filled with flood water, the bus fell into the Palguni river near a hotel belonging to one Krishnayya at Ulaibettu School.

4. As a result, Badruddin sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same during the course of his employment. The claimants have sought compensation contending that respondent No.1 being the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.2/Insurance Company being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the same.

5. Upon service of notice, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared and filed separate written statements before the earlier Commissioner and after transfer of the case the owner of the vehicle remained absent. The respondent No.1 admitted ownership of the bus and employment of the deceased as driver and contended that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 without violation of policy conditions.

6. The insurer denied the employment of the deceased, the death occurred during the course of employment, and also the age, occupation and income of the deceased, while admitting issuance of the insurance policy subject to its terms and conditions. The insurer further contended that the deceased did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident alleging that the claim amount is exorbitant. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Commissioner framed issues. In order to substantiate the case of the claimants claimant No.1 got herself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to P9. On the other hand respondent No.1 got himself as RW-1 and other witnesses as RW2 and RW3, and got marked documents at Ex.R1 to R4.

8. The Commissioner, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that insurer had successfully established violation of policy conditions by proving that the deceased driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the transport vehicle as on the date of the accident, the transport licence was expired on 17.06.2008 i.e., prior to the accident dated 14.08.2008 and further dismissed the claim against the respondent No.2-Insurance Company by fastening sole liability on the owner of the vehicle and awarded Rs. Rs.5,38,200/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e., 14.08.2008, with apportionment.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant-owner of the vehicle would contend that the respondents herein instituted claim petition before the Commis