Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

A.O. No.389 of 2022

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the

appellant.

Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, Advocate

for respondent nos.2 & 3.

Ms. Babita Jalal, Advocate for

respondent no.4.

2. This Appeal from Order has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company assailing the judgment and award dated 27.07.2022, passed by the learned Employees’ Compensation Commissioner/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, in E.C.A. No.11 of 2019, whereby the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation to the tune of

₹8,59,280/- in favour of the claimants.

3. The principal ground urged by the appellant is that the deceased workman, who was employed as a driver with respondent no.4 (employer/vehicle owner), was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. It is contended that the driving licence of the deceased stood suspended for the period from 29.09.2018 to 28.12.2018 by the Regional Transport Officer, Rishikesh, and the fatal accident occurred on 31.10.2018, during the subsistence of the said suspension. According to the appellant, this amounted to a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, absolving the insurer of its liability under the Employees’

Compensation Act, 1923.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the absence of a valid driving licence constitutes a breach of policy conditions, absolving it of liability under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. Reliance is placed on the statement of D.W.-1, indicating that suspension notice was dispatched via post and recorded in the department's dispatch register.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.4 submits that neither the owner nor the deceased had actual knowledge of the suspension. D.W-1’s statement corroborates lack of awareness, as relied upon by the Commissioner. The Commissioner correctly held that no evidence demonstrates notice of suspension to the employer or deceased. It is further submitted that the burden to prove conscious breach of policy conditions lies squarely upon the insurer, which burden has not been discharged in the present case.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the learned Employees’ Compensation Commissioner has rightly relied upon the statement of P.W.-2 and recorded a categorical finding that no information regarding the suspension of the driving licence of the deceased was available either with respondent no.4 (the employer) or with the deceased himself. Admittedly, no documentary evidence has been produced by the Insurance Company to establish service of the suspension order or notice upon the employer or the deceased. Mere entry in the departmental dispatch register or A JA R I P S A W N A L DDo25ss1JDA te .e 0 u iN a 5 =r g I 3 9 = tS i . U : 4 a i e a C t H W c l . T : 2 a B 2 N =I 2 T l 0 A G 9 0 I u 0 A yN d L8 =H m 2 Rd s, 7 e 6 i Co Ad 4b a g . = 0 O 4 Kbb e n 1 6 H Hr 7bU e = . 3 3 0 I 6 d A RG 05 9 3 8 N T b 61 H 3 a 1 D0 y O E 33 5 C F4 ,98 A F : O CD 5 8 9 R U 1 1 f U F 5 P 9 T 7 : 0 e R 1 A f T 04 4e T 7 N A 2A 14 O + 2 R95 A J B 0 A AF 3b DE 5 7K I a US AA ' c3 H 3 WT A 2 E e 0 AT 6 3 , 2 A ' AN p6 DC LRDco 2E 2 A s , C2 3t K 1E a9 H 5A l6C D A 6 4o 66 N cd ,8 0 D e cD 4 , = n 8 9= 25 D 6 A 3 4 3 R 6 5 05 P4 04 AC 14 N5 ,