IMPORTANT POINT
An employer is liable for compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act even if the employee was negligent or held a fake driving license, provided the accident occurred in the course of employment.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging award dated 20.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, whereby the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have been held entitled to compensation of an amount of Rs. 5,39,040/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and Rs. 5,000/- as funeral expenses with respect to the deceased. The amount has been made payable by the appellant-Insurance Company.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that on 06.06.2014, a tipper bearing Regd. No. JK02AC- 3218 that was being driven by the deceased-Ashok Kumar met with an accident resulting in his death. The vehicle in question at the relevant time was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. Respondent No. 6- Manjeet Singh happens to be the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. claimants happen to be the legal heirs/dependents of the deceased, who at the relevant time was under the employment of respondent No. 6.

3. After the death of the deceased, legal heirs/dependents i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed a petition claiming compensation under the Employees Compensation Act before the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Jammu (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner"). The Commissioner on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:-

"(a) Whether the deceased "Ashok Kumar" falls within the definition of "employee" as prescribed under the provisions of E.C. Act, 1923? OPP

(b) Whether the deceased met with an accident arising out of and during the course of his employment? OPP

(c) What was the age and wages of the deceased at the time of accident? OPP

(d) Whether the vehicle in question involved in accident was driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-1

(e) Relief? O.P. Parties."

4. After recording of evidence, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the deceased-Ashok Kumar was an employee of respondent No. 6 and he met with an accident, which arose out of and during the course of his employment. The Commissioner, after taking the wages of deceased at Rs. 7,000/- per month and his age as 45 years, assessed the compensation and passed the impugned award.

5. The appellant has challenged the impugned award primarily on the ground that the deceased-driver despite knowing that he was holding fake driving license deliberately plied the offending vehicle thereby inviting risk to his life, as such, the Commissioner was not justified in awarding compensation in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. It has been contended that the Commissioner despite having come to the conclusion that driving license of the deceased was fake, did not absolve the appellant-Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the insured.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

7. The first contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner, after clearly recording in the impugned award that the deceased-driver himself endangered his safety and life by inviting unnecessary calamity by engaging in driving of vehicle when he knew that he has not a valid driving license, went on to pass the award in favour of the dependents of the deceased, which, according to appellant could not have been done. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mackinnon Mackenzie and Company Private Limited v. Ibrahim Mahammed Issak, 1970 AIR SC 1906.

8. In order to test the merits of the contention of the appellant it will be apt to notice the relevant provision of Employees Compensation Act. Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act deals with the employer's liability to pay compensation. Sub-section (1) of the said provision is the relevant to the context and the same reads as un