JUDGMENT

Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy., learned counsel for the appellant has appeared in person.

Since question of law is framed and matter is admitted, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant, it is heard finally.

2. Notice to respondents was ordered on 25.04.2016.

A perusal of the office note depicts that respondents 2 and 3 are served and unrepresented. They have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts are these:

The claimants are the parents of the deceased. It is said that the deceased was aged 22 years and he was working as a salesman and delivery boy under the first respondent's Standard Auto Corporation. On the 11th day of May, 2005 at about 11:45 am., the deceased was taking the first respondent's vehicle Kinetic Honda bearing Registration No.KA- 20-K-1833, near Abhinethri Complex, Chantharu Village, Udupi Taluk, the vehicle got skid and deceased fell down and badly injured on the head and died on the spot. Contending that the accident occurred during the course of employment, the dependants of the deceased filed a petition under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act seeking compensation.

In response to the notice, the first respondent appeared through his counsel and filed written statement and contended that the deceased died when he was proceeding in the motorcycle and he was working as salesman and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and contended that the Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

The second respondent - Insurance company appeared through its counsel and filed written statement and contended that deceased was not employed under the first respondent and it is not the accident during the course of employment. It is also vehemently contended that the deceased was not possessing valid driving license as on the date of accident.

Among other grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Based on the above pleadings, the MACT framed Issues.

The parties led evidence and marked the documents. The MACT vide Judgment and award dated:18.03.2015 partly allowed the petition and awarded compensation of Rs.3,32,055/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty Two Thousand and Fifty Five only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 12.06.2005 till the date of actual deposit. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.

5. This Court vide order dated:01.03.2024 framed the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the MACT is justified in coming to conclusion that the death caused was during and under the course of employment?

2. Whether the MACT is justified in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation when the driver had no license to ride two wheeler vehicle?

6. Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy., learned counsel for the appellant in presenting his arguments strenuously contended that the Judgment of the MACT is liable to be set-aside on two counts; first is accident did not occur during the course of employment and the second is that the deceased was not having valid driving license as on the date of accident. He drew the attention of the Court to the decision of BELI RAM VS. RAJINDER KUMAR AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2020 SC

4453.

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant and perused the appeal papers and the decision with utmost care.

7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the deceased was riding the first respondent's vehicle Kinetic Honda bearing Registration No.KA-20-K-1833. The first claimant being the father of the deceased in the cross examination admits that his son was on his way to home to attend the function and at that time accident occurred. If that be so, the death caused was not during the course of employment. This aspect of the matter