An insurance company is not liable to pay compensation under a policy if the driver of the insured vehicle did not have a valid driving licence.

P. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THESE three appeals have been filed by the insurer against a common award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensationcum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, cuttack (for short, 'the Commissioner'), in three different claim cases under the Workmen 's Compensation Act arising out of the same accident.

( 2 ) THE accident took place on 18. 12. 92 involving a tractor attached with a trolley. W. C. Case No. 96-D of 1993 (corresponding to M. A. No. 562 of 1997) and W. C. Case No. 97-D of 1993 (corresponding to m. A. No. 560 of 1997) were filed by the two coolies who were travelling in the tractor along with trolley. W. C. Case'no. 98-D of 1993 (corresponding to M. A. No. 561 of 1997) was filed by the driver of the tractor. It was alleged in the three applications that the injuries were sustained in the accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

( 3 ) THE owner had admitted about the employment and the accident, but pleaded that the compensation should be paid by the insurance company. The insurer while generally denying about the allegations contained in the claim applications called upon the claimants/the owner to produce the insurance policy as well as the driving licence.

( 4 ) THE Commissioner found that the three claimants were workmen and had sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. It was found that the two coolies were receiving Rs. 900 each towards their monthly wages, whereas the driver was receiving a sum of Rs. 1,000 per month towards his wages. In W. C. Case No. 96-D of 1993, it was found that the loss of earning capacity was 35 per cent and accordingly, on the basis of the age, it was directed that a sum of Rs. 32,437 is payable. In W. C. Case No. 97-D of 1993, loss of earning capacity of the coolie was assessed at 30 per cent and a sum of Rs. 29,281 was directed to be paid. In W. C. Case No. 98-D of 1993 relating to the driver, loss of earning capacity was assessed at 25 per cent and a sum of Rs. 26,474 was assessed as compensation. In all three cases, the insurer was called upon to pay the compensation amount.

( 5 ) IN these appeals, it is contended that the insurer had filed application for examining a doctor to assess the loss of earning capacity of each of the claimants, but such application had been illegally rejected. On perusal of the order-sheet it appears that opportunity had been given to the insurer on two or three occasions to examine the doctor, but the insurer failed to produce the doctor. Thereafter, the Commissioner in his discretion refused to grant further adjournment for examination of a doctor on behalf of the insurance company. Since opportunity had been given, it cannot be said that the Commissioner has committed any substantial error of law in rejecting the prayer of the insurer for further adjournment of the cases for examination of a doctor. Thus, the first submission on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted.

( 6 ) THE counsel for the appellant also submitted that the vehicle had been insured only for agricultural purposes and it was not meant for being used for commercial purposes. He has submitted that in the claim applications, it was stated that the vehicle was returning after transporting stones and in evidence it was stated that sand was being transported. It is submitted that in either case, such transportation had nothing to do with any agricultural purpose and was evidently for a commercial purpose and as such there has been breach of the conditions of the policy. On a perusal of the written statement, it appears that no such specific plea had been taken, nor any particular question had been put to the claimants or the owner to the effect that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. Transportation of stone or sand may be also for agricultural purposes under certain circumstances. In the absence of specific plea or specific question on this aspect, it would not be permissible to allow