IMPORTANT POINT
The insurer is liable to pay compensation, even if the driver did not have the specific endorsement in the driving license to drive the commercial vehicle, based on the interpretation of relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mrs. R. D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Mochahari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 presently the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 challenging the award dated 14.12.2012 in W.C. Case No.51/2008 whereby the learned Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation at Golaghat (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) had awarded an amount of Rs.3,07,540/-along with simple interest @9% per annum on the total amount of compensation from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. It was also mentioned that the Appellant herein will be liable to pay the said compensation along with interest to the claimant and the amount was directed to be deposited within 30 (thirty) days from the date of the said order.

3. This Court vide an order dated 15.03.2013 admitted the instant appeal by formulating two substantial questions of law which are reproduced herein under:

“1. Whether, in view of the specific requirement of the policy regarding valid driving license, if the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and he had a driving license which authorized him to drive private vehicle and not as paid driver, the appellant was liable to pay any compensation to the respondent as per the terms of the policy of the vehicle?

2. Whether, when a fact is not in dispute, additional evidence is to be led to prove the same?”

4. The first substantial question of law relates to as to whether the Appellant Insurance Company would be liable if the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle inasmuch as the driver had a driving license which authorized him to drive private vehicle and not as paid driver.

5. This Court has duly taken note of the judgment of the learned Tribunal wherein the very aspect of the matter has been duly considered and it was opined that the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 did not require that the claimant is required to prove whether he has possessed any driving license either private or profession. It was opined that the claimant was only required to prove that he was an employee/workman and thereupon the owner and the insurer are jointly and severely liable for compensation if the accident occurs during the course employment. In the opinion of this Court, the said opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal is inconsonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Iyyapan Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another reported in (2013) 7 SCC 62 and in that regard, this Court finds it very relevant to reproduce paragraph Nos. 17, 18 and 19 which are herein under:

“17. Reading the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is evidently clear that in certain circumstances the insurer’s right is safeguarded but in any event the insurer has to pay compensation when a valid certificate of insurance is issued notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount. Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer can defend the action inter alia on the grounds, namely,

(i) the vehicle was not driven by a named person,

(ii) it was being driven by a person who was not having a duly granted licence, and

(iii) person driving the vehicle was disqualified to hold and obtain a driving licence.

Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for t