IMPORTANT POINT
Under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, the employer's negligence is not required to be proven for compensation claims, and the defenses available to insurers are limited in such cases.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. By this appeal, the appellant-insurer challenges the judgment and order dtd. 5/8/2022 rendered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Judge 11 th Labour Court, Mumbai in Application (ECA) No.122/B-23 of 2019, by which, claim of respondent Nos.1 to 5 was partly allowed awarding compensation to the dependents of the deceased on the ground that the deceased was an employee of respondent No.6 who met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries during the course of his employment.

2. Briefly stated, facts are as follows.

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the dependents of deceased Imran Shaikh (for short "deceased"). The deceased was employed as a driver on a vehicle bearing No. MH-03-CT-0438 owned by respondent No.6-opposite party which was duly insured with the insurer.

4. On the fateful day of 10/6/2018, when the deceased was discharging duty as a driver on the aforesaid vehicle, met with an accident on Eastern Express Highway. He was taken to K.M. Phule Municipal General Hospital, Vikhroli (East) where he was declared dead. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 - dependents, therefore, moved an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.

5. Written statements were filed by the insurer as well as the owner of the vehicle. The learned Court below framed issues and after going through the evidence partly allowed the claim of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 by awarding compensation of Rs.8, 15, 400.00 with interest @ 12% per annum from 10 th June, 2018 till it's realisation. The Court below also awarded penalty @ 10% of the compensation and funeral expenses to the tune of Rs.5000.00.

6. At the outset, when an application was moved for staying effect, execution and implementation of the impugned award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, a question was put to the learned Counsel for the appellant as to whether there is a substantial question of law involved in this appeal as per proviso to Sec. 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. However, the learned Counsel was unable to point out any such substantial question of law.

7. Be that as it may. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and award would also reveal that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 by adducing cogent and acceptable evidence have not only proved employer employee relationship between the deceased and respondent No.6-employer but also proved the fact that at the time of the accident on 10/6/2018, deceased was driving vehicle of respondent No.6 and, therefore, accident occurred during the course of employment and also arising out of the employment. Merely because the deceased was brother-in-law of the insured would not in itself disentitle respondent Nos. 1 to 5-dependents to claim compensation from the insurer and the owner. The evidence adduced on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 - dependents along with documents could not be rebutted during cross by the appellant.

8. Stand was taken by the appellant that deceased did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, however, despite granting an opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence in rebuttal, it failed and, therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent Nos. 1 to 5-dependents.

9. Having considered the findings returned by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, I find that there is no substantial question of law in this appeal.

10. It would not be out of place to rely upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mastan and another, 2006 ACJ 528, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court answered a question as to whether insurer, while defending any action initiated under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (1923 Act) is precluded from raising any defence as envisaged under sub-sec. 2 of Sec. 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was pursuant