The renewal of a driving license, even if based on a fake original license, renders the renewed license valid, and the insurance company remains liable for compensation in case of an accident.

JUDGMENT :

Dipak Misra, J. - These appeals preferred u/s 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arise from the proceedings initiated under the Act relating to the same accident. Two of the claimants-respondents were stated to be coolies and the other was a helper of the vehicle in question. Since the facts and law involved in all the cases are similar and the appeals were heard together and one set of argument was canvassed by the learned counsel, the same are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. A brief reference to the facts would suffice. The claimants- respondents filed applications for grant of compensation as they had sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in course of their employment before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bhubaneswar forming the subject-matter of W.C. Case Nos.70, 71, and 72 of 1993. The employer appearing before the Commissioner admitted the employment, accidental injuries and wage of the claimants and pleaded that the vehicle having been validly insured with the National Insurance Company Limited, the present appellant-insurer was liable to indemnify. The insurance company resisted the claim of the claimants and the denials were of general in nature. Taking into consideration the materials on record the Commissioner under the Act awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000.00, 34,409.00 and 41,325.80 paise respectively. Against the aforesaid awards three Misc. Appeals were preferred forming the subject-matter of Misc. Appeal Nos. 561, 562, and 563 of 1994. In course of hearing of the appeals it was contended by the insurer-appellant that on verification they had come to know that no driving licence had in fact been issued or renewed in favour of the driver of the vehicle. This contention was canvassed on the basis of a verification report of the licencing authority. On consideration of the stand of the company this Court remanded the matters directing the Commissioner to dispose of the cases after affording opportunities of hearing to the parties. After remand the Commissioner has re-affirmed his awards passed earlier on. Hence, these appeals are at the instance of the insurer-appellant.

3. Mr. B.P. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Commissioner has failed to comply with the order of remand as the insurer has not granted adequate opportunity to prove that the vehicle in question was not driven by an authorised person. Non-granting of sufficient opportunity, as submitted by Mr. Das, vitiates the orders passed by the Commissioner. Mr. Das on behalf of the applicant has filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC for taking into consideration the documents annexed to the said application as Annexures-1 and 2. Annexure-1 is the correspondence made by the advocate of the Company from Ranchi with the Divisional Manager of the appellant- Company indicating that the District Transport Officer, Ranchi had passed orders for issuance of particulars of driving licence No. 26691. An-nexure-2 is the particulars of the said licence which shows that the aforesaid licence has been granted in the name of one Abdul Manan. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the insurer that Annexure-2 could not be produced before the Commissioner and this would show that the licence was not granted in favour of another Sahu, the driver of the vehicle.

4. Controverting the submission of Mr. Das, Mr. L.M. Nanda, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 in each of the appeals has contended that adequate opportunity had been granted by the Commissioner but no effective steps were taken by the company. The affected persons have suffered enough and the insurance company has been adopting dilatory methods to frustrate the claim of the claimants. Mr. Nanda has further submitted that the finding of the Commissioner is in consonance with the direction of this Court and the award being in terms of the order of remand is not vulnerable. It has been ve