1. This order will govern CIMA No. 32/2001 presented by Mr. N.H. Khuroo Advocate on behalf of the appellant in terms of Section-30 of the Workmans Compensation Act, by medium of which the appellant has assailed the judgment passed by Commissioner under Workmans Compensation Act Srinagar in the claim titled Mst Noora and others v. Ghulam Mohamad Khan and another, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. It is profitable to give a flask back of the case the womb of which has given birth to the present appeal.

2. It seems that Mst Noora and others have filed an application before Commissioner under Workmans Compensation Act for grant of compensation to the tune of four lacs. The respondent No. 2 caused appearance and filed objections before the Commissioner. Respondent No. 1 has admitted on 17.4.1999 in the court below that the deceased Ghulam Qadir Khan was in his employment and died during the course of employment and the vehicle was insured by respondent No. 1.

3. Respondent No. 2 has filed objections. The respondent No. 2 resisted the claim in terms of the objections. The main defence of the respondent No. 2 is that the deceased was not having a valid licence.

4. That the Commissioner passed the award after holding that the validity on the licence cannot be granted for avoiding liability in terms of the Workmans Compensation Act and accordingly passed compensation to the tune of Rs. 207980/-. The appeal stands diarised and respondents have been set exparte vide order of this court dated 21.2.2003.

5. Heard. Mr. Khuroo heatedly argued that the deceased was not having valid licence, thus the appellant cannot be saddled with liability.

6. Considered. I am of the considered view that the argument of Mr. Khuroo is devoid of any force for the following reasons.

The aim and purpose of Workmans Compensation Act, 1923 is to ameliorate the sufferings of the workman and to provide a remedy to the workman in order to save the victims of accident/from the destitution, vagrancy and, other social evils.

7. The legislation was enacted to assuage and remedy the poverty. It is profitable to reproduce the passage from the objections and reasons for the legislation published as early in 1922.

"The general principles of Workmens Compensation command almost universal acceptance, and India is now merely alone amongst civilized countries in being without legislation embodying those principles. For a number of years the more generous employers have been in the habit of giving compensation voluntarily, but this practice is by no means general. The growing complexity of industry in this country, with the increasing use of machinery and consequent danger to Workmen, alongwith the comparative poverty of the Workmen themselves, renders it advisable that they should be protected, as far as possible, from hardship arising from accidents."

8. While going through the Workmens Compensation Act, what is required to be proved is that the deceased was workman and was employed to do an act in the course of employment and during the course of employment the workman died due to an accident.

9. The provisions of Workmens Compensation Act no where prescribe that if a driver is employed he should possess valid licence as is required in terms of the mandate of Motor Vehicles Act 1939. This view is fortified by the judgment of Honble High court of Karnatka titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hazira Begum and others reported in 1995(1) ACJ page 236, it is profitable to reproduce the para 9 of the judgment herein:

"9. A scan of various decisions of the High court will disclose that where a workman was engaged in the employers business and who was doing the very thing he was employed to do, then the mere fact that he was not acting strictly by the letter of law will not make the accident any the less `arising out of and in the course of employment. It follows, therefore, the owner and insurance company are both liable in such an event.."

10. The compensation is to be paid to the w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document