The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, even if the driver does not have a valid driving license.

Sanjay Karol, J.

1. The appeal stands admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation, if the driver is not having valid and effective driving license?

2. Whether the ld. Commissioner below is justified in awarding 30% solatium on the award amount under the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923?

3. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay penal interest under the provisions of workmen Compensation Act?

4. Whether the ld. Commissioner below has erred in interpreting Section 4-A(3)(a)(i) of the Workmen Compensation Act?”

2. Insofar as question No. (1) is concerned, the issue is no longer res integra in view of law laid down by the apex Court in Kulwant Singh & others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2015) 2 SCC 186, wherein it is held as under:

“6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court erred in holding that licence for driving light motor vehicle disentitled the driver to drive 'light goods vehicle'. Reliance has been placed on the Judgments of this Court in S. Iyyapan vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another, (2013) 7 SCC 62 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesearagi and others, (2008) 3 SCC 464. Thus, there was no breach of policy entitling the Insurance Company to recovery rights against the owner. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the view taken by the High Court.

(7) We have considered the rival submissions and perused the judgments relied upon.

(8) We find the judgments relied upon cover the issue in favour of the appellants. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra), this Court referred to the provisions of Sections 2(21) and (23) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which are definitions of 'light motor vehicle' and 'medium goods vehicle' respectively and the rules prescribing the forms for the licence, i.e. Rule 14 and Form No.4. It was concluded:

"20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that "transport vehicle" has now been substituted for "medium goods vehicle" and "heavy goods vehicle". The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time to cover both "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle". A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well."

(9) In S. Iyyapan (supra), the question was whether the driver who had a licence to drive 'light motor vehicle' could drive 'light motor vehicle' used as a commercial vehicle, without obtaining endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle. It was held that in such a case, the Insurance Company could not disown its liability. It was observed :

"18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment [Civil Misc. Appeal No.1016 of 2002, order dated 31.10.2008 (Mad)] is, therefore, liable to be set aside."

(10) No contrary view has been brought to our notice.

(11) Accordingly, we are of the view that there was no breach of any condition of insurance policy, in the present case, entitling the Insurance Company to recovery rights.

(12) Accordingly, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore that of the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs.”

3. Insofar as question No. (4) is concerned, this issue also stands settled in view of law laid down by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company vs. Bhagat Sing