The legal representatives of a deceased claimant can claim compensation for personal injury suffered in a motor accident, and the liability for interest on the compensation amount lies with the insurer.

Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the award of the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner, Meerut dated 22.4.2017 in Case No. E.C. No. 186 of 2006.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the claimant Sansar Singh had been engaged on the post of driver by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and that while on duty/driving the bus of the said corporation bearing registration No. UP- 25T-5451, the said bus met with an accident on 11.02.2006 while on way from Bareilly to Delhi. In that accident the claimant Sansar Singh was seriously injured. He was initially admitted in a Government Hospital at Bareilly and thereafter he was shifted to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital Delhi and thereafter to Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi owing to his serious medical condition. In the course of treatment both legs of Sansar Singh were amputated and thus he became 100% disabled. On the date of accident, according to the service book the age of Sansar Singh was 42 years.

3. Arising from the above accident, claim petition was filed by Sansar Singh in the year 2006 which remained pending for unduly long period. During the pendency of the claim petition, the claimant Sansar Singh expired on 26.05.2012. Resultantly his legal representatives were substituted. The impugned award has been passed in their favour by awarding Rs. 4,06,656/- together with 12% interest from 11.03.2006 till the date of payment. In the proceedings before the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner, Meerut, objections were raised by the insurer to the effect that on the date of the accident Sansar Singh did not have a valid driving licence; that the injury report of the Bareilly Hospital was not filed and therefore, the fact of the injuries received as a result of accident was not proved and further it was submitted; and that the age of Sansar Singh was 61 years on the date of accident and therefore, the compensation, if any, ought to be awarded accordingly.

4. The Employee’s Compensation Commissioner has after allowing the parties opportunity to lead evidence and after considering the evidence so led has dealt with objections raised by the insurer.

5. In respect of the objection that the driving licence of Sansar Singh had not been produced, the Commissioner specifically took note of the evidence led by Sansar Singh that he lost some money and his driving licence at the time of accident. In this regard the statement of Sansar Singh, a copy of which has been annexed with this appeal clearly establishes that such statement was made. The Commissioner had also thereafter taken note of the fact that inasmuch as Sansar Singh was driving the bus of the Corporation, and he was also found to be an employee of that Corporation, it may be presumed that he had a valid driving licence as in normal course the Corporation would not engage a person to drive the bus, if he did not possess a valid driving licence. Also, it cannot be lost sight of that the injuries suffered by Sansar Singh were serious in which he had lost both his legs. Eventually, considering the seriousness of the accident, it is not unnatural to accept the explanation of Sansar Singh that he did not get issued a duplicate driving licence as the person who had no legs and had no use of the same.

6. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the finding of the Commissioner that on the date of accident Sansar Singh had a valid driving licence and therefore, the insurer was liable to pay compensation.

7. As far as the second objection is concerned, it is of no relevance that the claimant did not produce the injury report of the Bareilly hospital as undisputedly, he was injured in the accident and was treated for the same at two hospitals at Delhi which fact was duly proved.

8. In respect of the third objection as to the age of Sansar Singh on the date of accident, the insurer only relied on the admission slip of the hospital at New Delhi where the claimant was shifted to in a serious condit