The central legal point established in the judgment is that the possession of a valid driving license, as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, is crucial in determining the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation in cases of employment injury.

1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai. in W.C.No.260 of 1998.

2. In the application filed by the claimant, he has stated that he was working as a driver of autorickshaw owned by the first opposite party. He was receiving a monthly salary of Rs.1,000 and a daily batta of Rs.50. He was receiving a total sum of Rs.2,200 approximately as monthly salary. On 22.10.1996 he was proceeding towards Kanadukathan from Pallathur after loading the materials from the shop belonging to the first opposite party. At about 12.30p.m. when the vehicle was approaching the Government Hospital, Kanadukathan, the vehicle capsized. As a result of which the claimant suffered fracture injuries on his two legs. He was admitted in the Government Hospital and subsequently, he was shifted to Karaikudi Government Hospital and later to Madurai Meenakshi Mission Hospital. He undertook treatment as inpatient from 22.10.1996 to 9.12.1996, 22.1.1997, and from 25.2.1997 to 28.2.1997. Subsequently also, he was undergoing treatment. As a result of the disability, he was unable to perform his duties as earlier. Even though the doctor of the employer had certified disability at 20 per cent, he has actually suffered hundred per cent disability in terms of his earning capacity. Hence, he was entitled to a sum of Rs.2,68,800 as compensation.

3. In the counter filed by the second respondent/Insurance Company, it was contended that the applicant was not a workman under the first opposite party. The percentage of disability was also disputed. There is no nexus between the loss sustained by the claimant and the quantum of compensation claimed by him. Subsequently, an additional statement of objections was filed by the second opposite party and it was stated that the applicant was not in possession of driving licence to drive the autorickshaw. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the loss allegedly sustained by the claimant.

4. On consideration of the said contention, the Commissioner held that the claimant was having an effective driving licensed to drive the light motor vehicles. A total sum of Rs.1,44,661 was awarded on the basis of the finding that the claimant had sustained employment injury. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that inasmuch as the claimant was not possessed with a valid licence to drive an autorickshaw, the Insurance Company was not obliged to pay any compensation. In order to prove that the claimant was not in possession of valid endorsement, an Assistant from the Office of the Insurance Company had also been examined as a witness. As regards the quantum of compensation, learned counsel submits that even though the disability certificate had been filed and certified by one Dr.A. Chinnadurai, since the said doctor has not been examined in evidence, the disability certificate was not admissible in evidence.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that when the driver has possessed of a licence to drive the light motor vehicle, the autorickshaw being of a lesser weight than the motor vehicle, he is certainly entitled to drive the autorickshaw and hence, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, 2000 ACJ 319.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relies on the judgment of K.Sampath, J. in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sundara Raj, 2000 (1) CTC 521 in support of his contention that in the absence of any endorsement for driving autorickshaw, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable.

8. I have considered the said issue of whether the claimant has possessed with a proper licence or not, in the light of he submissions made by both sides as well as the provisions contained under the Motor Vehicles Act.

9. There can be no dispute over the fact that