JUDGMENT :

1. In this appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 award dated 31.10.2018, passed by the Court of Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Kathua (for brevity ‘Commissioner’) is under challenge, wherein appellant has been directed to pay a compensation of Rs.9,53,819/- within 30 days failing which interest @ 12% p.a. on the order till the time it is actually realized to the claimants/respondents l to 5, herein.

2. The appeal is being filed on the premise that in the claim petition filed by the respondents 1 to 5 for grant of compensation on account of death of one Sandeep Kumar S/o Gian Chand, before the Commissioner, the claimants contended that the deceased Sandeep Kumar while being in the employment of respondent No.6 herein died in a vehicular accident while driving a heavy goods vehicle owned by respondent No. 6 on 14.08.2017. The said deceased-driver has been stated to be the employee of respondent No. 6 of the age of 28 years earning a monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/-.

3. The employer/respondent No. 6 herein is stated to have appeared before the Commissioner and in the objections filed admitted the factum of employment, accident and death of the deceased-driver, however, admitted the monthly salary drawn by the deceased as Rs. 8000/- instead of Rs. 15,000/-. The respondent No. 6 is further stated to have contended in the objections that the vehicle stands insured with the appellant-company herein and as such the claim has to be indemnified by the appellant-company.

4. It is being stated in the appeal that the appellant being respondent before the Commissioner appeared and contested the claim petition inter alia on the grounds that the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance stand violated by the insured as the deceased-driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident.

5. The Commissioner is stated to have framed following four issues:-

“1. Whether the deceased falls within the definition of employee as per the provisions of Employee’s Compensation Act? OPP

2. What was the age and wages of the deceased at the time of accident? OPP

3. Whether there is any violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-2

4. Relief ?

6. The evidence in the matter is stated to have been led by the contesting parties, whereupon the Commissioner is stated to have passed the impugned award.

7. The award (supra) in the instant appeal is being questioned on the grounds which are in extenso extracted and reproduced hereunder:-

“(A) That the Hon'ble Court below has not appreciated the law as well as facts on record properly, thus award impugned is not sustainable and deserves to beset-aside.

(B) That the impugned award is against the law and facts of the case in so for as liability of the appellant is concerned, thus requires to be set-aside.

(C) That in order to discharge the burden of proof as cast upon the appellant by virtue of issue no.3 framed in the said claim petition, the appellant placed on record the certificate issued by the licensing authority Lakhanpur, Kathua categorically reflecting that the driving license of the driver Sandeep Kumar who was authorized to drive MCWG (NT), LMV(NT), TRANS(TR), the validity of Tr was w.e.f. 23.01.2014 to 22-01-2017.

(D) That the appellant in order to prove the violations of M.V. Act, the policy conditions and the liability to indemnify the owner, examined the witnesses Sukhvinder Singh, Junior Assistant RTO office Kathua (R2W1), who appeared along with the record of DL of the deceased driver and stated on oath that as per record tallied with the certificate of RTO the driver Sandeep Kumar could not drive Heavy Goods vehicle after 22-01-2017. The certificate issued by the RTO was proved, the validity of DL and the limitations to ply the vehicle was proved and the violation was proved.

(E) That the appellants also examined Sh. Sovit Kumar, Administrative Officer, National Insu