The central legal point established in the judgment is that the driving license status of the deceased did not absolve the employer or the Insurance Company from liability to pay compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a statutory appeal filed under section 30 of the Employees Compensation (Workmen’s Compensation) Act, 1923 aimed against an award dated 22.03.2010 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Commissioner Employee’s Compensation), Jammu on File no. Death-33/WCAct/06 titled – “Mandu Ram and Ors. Vs Harjeet Singh and Anr.”.

2. In terms of said award, the respondents no. 1 and 2, the parents of the deceased workman - Roshan Lal, have come to be awarded compensation of an amount of Rs.4,33,820/- made payable by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Co. Ltd (in short ‘OIC’) as being the insurer of ill-fated vehicle being registration no. JK02T-4255 owned by the respondent no. 4 – Harjeet Singh and was driven by said Roshan Lal.

3. The deceased – Roshan Lal was in the employment of the respondent no. 4 – Harjeet Singh as a Truck driver having Truck no. JK02T-4255 at his driving disposal. On 15.04.2006, when the deceased – Roshan Lal was driving said Truck no. JK02T-4255 on its way from Jammu to Srinagar, upon reaching Betri Chashma, said Truck met with an accident by skidding into a Nallah resulting in death of its driver - Roshan Lal.

4. Upon this incident, the parents of the deceased – Roshan Lal i.e. the respondents no. 1 and 2 joined by his brother came to petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu as being Commissioner Under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 on the basis of fact that the deceased – Roshan Lal was in the employment of the respondent no. 4 – Harjeet Singh, the registered owner of the said vehicle which was having an insurance from the appellant-OIC vide policy no. 262200/31/2006/4670 effect from 25.03.2006 to 24.03.2007.

5. The claim petition so preferred by the respondents no. 1 and 2 as being the parents of the deceased – Roshan Lal before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu came to be contested only by the appellant-OIC while the respondent no. 4 – Harjeet Singh, the owner of the vehicle in reference despite service refrained to join the proceedings resulting in ex-parte proceedings against him before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu.

6. The appellant-OIC from its end opposed the claim petition and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu came to frame the following issues in the claim petition:-

“1. Whether the deceased driver falls under the definition of Workman as prescribed in the definition of Workman under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923? OPP

2. Whether the deceased driver met with an accident during and in the course of his employment with the respondent no. 1?

3. What were the wages and age of the deceased at the time of accident/death?

4. Relief.

From their end, the parents of the deceased – Roshan Lal as being claimants came to lead evidence in the form of statement of the respondent no. 1 - Mandu Ram, the father of the deceased – Roshan Lal who came to state that his son was a driver by profession in the employment of respondent no. 4 – Harjeet Singh and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month as wages and in addition to Rs.100/- per day per trip. The age of the deceased – Roshan Lal was said to be 25 years at the time of his death and that he was the only bread earner of his parents. In addition, the parents of the deceased – Roshan Lal examined witness Shiv Ram who also confirmed the age, relationship and status of the deceased – Roshan Lal.

7. From the end of the appellant-OIC, Junior Assistant ARTO, Rajouri came to be summoned as a witness with respect to driving license no. 6415/MVD/R dated 24.12.2003 which was proved to have been issued in favour of one Mohd. Qadir S/o Noor Din R/o Dera Bullian, Poonch and not in favour of the deceased – Roshan Lal.

8. The respondent no. 4 – Harjeet Singh, the owner of the vehicle also came to be examined at the instance of the appellant-OIC as a witness in the case and in his statement, the respondent no. 4 – Harjeet Singh confirmed the fact that he was the