A compensation award must be based on reasoned findings; contradictory conclusions regarding the validity of a driving licence and unreasoned findings on the employer-employee relationship warrant the remand of the case for a fresh decision.

, (Whether approved for reporting ? Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?)

________________________________________________

Sushil Kukreja, Judge

(oral)

h The present appeal has been filed by the gappellant/Insurance Company against the impugned award i dated 18.09.2014, passed by learned Employee’s Compensation Commissioner, Court No. 1, Mandi, H.P., in WCA Petition No. 15/2011, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners was allowed and they were held entitled for a compensation of Rs. 3,32,055/-, with simple interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing the petition till its realization, to be paid by appellant/Insurance Company. P

2. The brief facts of the case, as set .up by the petitioners, are that respondent No. 1 was a registered Government Contractor and deceased Pawan Kumar had been employed by him as a driver to drive his Tractor, bearing registration No. HP-33A-7306. On 24.05.2007, at about 3:30 P.M., during the course of employment, the said Tractor met with an accident due to failure of brakes, in which, deceased Pawan Kumar expired. According to the petitioners, prior to accident, the deceased was being paid Rs. h5,000/- per month, as wages, as such they claimed gcompensation in accordance with law.

3. Respondent No. 1 by filing reply has partly admitted the claim of the petitioners in so far as the deceased Pawan Kumar had been employed by him as a driver. However, it has been stated that he had been employed only on 20.04.2007. It has been denied that at the time of accident, the deceased was 23 years of age and was being paid Rs. 5000/- per month, as wages. The fact that petitioners No. 2 & 3 being related to him has also Pbeen denied. It has been stated that the Tractor had .been duly insured with respondent No. 2, as such, it is respondent No. 2, who is liable to indemnify the petitioners.

4. By filing reply, respondent No. 2 has contested the petition and raised preliminary objection qua maintainability and stated that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and respondent No. 1. It has been further stated that the deceased was not holding a valid and effective driving licenhce and no intimation qua the accident has been given by grespondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2.

5. On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for determination:-

1. Whether the accident of deceased Pawan Kumar took place during the course of employment as driver of respondent No. 1, as prayed? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, as prayed for?OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? ? OPR

4. Whether the deceased was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? OPR-2

5. Whether there was no relationship of employer- employee between the deceased and respondent NPo. 1, as alleged? OPR

6. Whether the deceased was casual driver of respondent No. 1 and petitioners are not entitled for compensation, as alleged? OPR

7. Relief.”

6. After the parties led evidence and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition filed by the petitioners was allowed and they were awarded compensation of Rs. 3,32,055/-, with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing the petition till its realization, to be paid by appellant/Insurance Company.

7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned award, the appellant/Insurance Company preferred the instant appeal, which was admitted for hearing on following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whe