THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.280 of 2013

J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved by the Order dated 08.10.2012 passed in W.C.No.197 of 2011 (impugned Order) by the learned Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad (hereinafter will be referred as ‘learned Commissioner’), appellant-Insurance company preferred the present Appeal praying this Court to set aside the impugned Order.

02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned Commissioner.

03. The brief facts of the case are that applicants filed a claim application under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now amended as Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923) claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of death of late Sri D. Suman (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) during the course of employment under opposite party No.1. Applicant was working as Driver on Auto bearing No.AP 37 TB 2750 under the employment of opposite party No.1- owner. On 21.07.2011 the deceased was on duty as Driver on the said vehicle and proceeding from Ponnur to Hyderabad with a load of wood and at about 06:00 AM., and when he reached the outskirts of Reddybavi Village, one Container Lorry bearing No. NL 01 A 9253 was coming in the opposite direction, dashed the auto of the deceased. Due to which, the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The Police, Choutuppal registered a case in Crime No.169 of 2011 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’).

04. It is further contended that deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and was paid wages @ Rs.7,000/- per month and that opposite party No.1 being owner and opposite party No.2 being insurance company and as death of the deceased occurred out of and during the course of employment, they are liable to pay compensation.

05. Opposite party No.1 remained exparte before the learned Commissioner.

06. Opposite party No.2 filed counter wherein the averments of claim application, employment of the deceased, occurrence and narration of accident, age, wage claimed by applicants, were denied. It is further contended that the deceased was not holding a valid driving license and that he was authorized to drive LMV-non-transport and MCWG but he was not authorized to drive LMV- transport. Further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and opposite party No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation and thus, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

07. Before the learned Commissioner, on behalf of applicant, she herself was examined as AW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of opposite party No.2, RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 and B2 were marked. Exs.X1 and X2 were also marked by the learned Commissioner.

08. The learned Commissioner after considering the submissions of both sides and evidence available on record both oral and documentary, has awarded compensation of Rs.5,63,773/-.

09. Dissatisfied by the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner, Opposite party No.2-Insurance company has filed the present Appeal to set aside the impugned Order.

10. Heard Sri C. Buchi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for appellant-Insurance company, Sri Kotagiri Sreedhar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri J.P.Srikanth, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the record.

11. The contention of learned Standing Counsel for appellant is that the driver of the crime vehicle has no valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident and that the deceased was not holding a valid driving license and that he was authorized to drive LMV-non-transport and MCWG but he was not authorized to drive LMV- transport but the learned Commissioner without considering the said aspects, has awarded huge amount towards compensation. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned Ord