Owner solely liable for workmen's compensation when permitting LMV-licensed driver without valid HMV licence to operate heavy vehicle, absolving insurer due to attributable policy breach; appeal dismissed for want of substantial question of law.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

This Appeal from Order has been preferred under Section 30 (1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1923”), assailing the judgment and award dated 18.06.2012 passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Tehri Garhwal, New Tehri in Claim Petition No.15 of 2009, whereby the claim petition filed by respondent no.1 was allowed and compensation of Rs.5,46,560/- along with simple interest at 10 per cent per annum, payable upon failure to deposit the amount within thirty days, was awarded against the present appellant–owner of the vehicle. The appellant seeks setting aside of the judgment on the grounds that the liability ought to have been fastened upon the insurer and that various findings of the learned Commissioner suffers from errors of law and fact.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant, Bhakti Ram, filed a petition on 11.11.2009 asserting that his son, Manish Kumar, aged about 22 years, was employed as a driver of Vehicle No.UA- 07R-8179, owned by the present appellant and insured with respondent no.2. It was submitted that in the intervening night of 20/21 March 2009, at about 01:30 A.M., the said vehicle met with an accident near village Bhvint on the Rishikesh - Srinagar motor road, causing the instantaneous death of Manish Kumar. An accident report was lodged at Police Station Devprayag, and post mortem was conducted on 22.03.2009 at Government Hospital, Narendranagar. The claimant pleaded that the deceased worked as a driver earning Rs.4,000/- per month and additionally received Rs.50/- per day as food allowance, making his monthly income approximately Rs.5,500/-. The claimant asserted that he was dependent upon the income of the deceased and sought compensation under the Act of 1923.

3. The claimant pleaded that his son Manish Kumar was employed as a driver on vehicle no. UA- 07R-8179 owned by the present appellant. He asserted that the deceased, aged about 22 years, was earning Rs.4,000/-, per month, along with Rs.50/- per day as food allowance, and contributed substantially to the household income. It was further stated that the deceased was healthy, fully capable of driving heavy vehicles, and was the only earning member upon whom the claimant-an elderly parent, was entirely dependent. The claimant emphasised that the accident occurred solely during the course of employment and that required intimation was sent to the employer, and that prior to filing the claim petition, a legal notice was also issued seeking compensation, to which no response was received.

4. The owner/appellant, in his written statement, accepted that Manish Kumar was engaged as a driver on his dumper and admitted that the accident occurred during the course of employment. He, however, asserted that the deceased was paid a salary of Rs.3,500/-, per month, and that all documents of the vehicle were valid on the date of the accident. He contended that since the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.2, the entire liability, if any, should fall upon the insurer. The appellant also emphasised that the deceased possessed a driving licence, which the employer had verified at the time of engagement. According to him, the learned Commissioner erred in law in fastening liability upon the employer despite existence of a valid policy and despite absence of any pleading or proof by the insurer tha