JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the order, dated

17.04.2012, made in W.C.No.97 of 2006, on the file of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, (Commissioner of Labour), Madurai. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the respondent herein is the petitioner and the second respondent herein is the petitioner before the Workmen's Compensation Tribunal.

2. Brief substance of the petition filed by the petitioner, in W.C.No.97 of

2008, is as follows:

The petitioner is the driver working under the first respondent. On

13.04.2004, when the petitioner was driving an Auto bearing Registration No.TN – 58 – C - 5022 along the Madurai – Dindigul main road, the auto dashed against a tamarind tree. The petitioner sustained injuries, he was admitted in Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital and took treatment as inpatient from 13.04.2004 till 06.05.2004. The petitioner was aged about 28 years, he was receiving a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month, including batta. His eye sight was affected, he could not continue his work, he lost the 3rd and 4th fingers in his left hand and he claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

3. A brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent, in W.C.No.97 of 2008, is as follows:-

There is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the first respondent. The petitioner has to prove that he had valid driving license and the accident has happened during the course of the employment. The injuries, treatment particulars are all denied. The petitioner has to prove his age and income. The petitioner is doing his work as before the accident. The claim is baseless and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. 1 witness was examined and 10 documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. 2 witnesses were examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondents. After considering both sides, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,16,404/- as compensation.

5. Against the award, the claimant filed an appeal before this Court in CMA(MD)No.569 of 2009 and the second respondent-Insurance Company has filed an appeal in CMA(MD)No.76 of 2009. In both the appeals a common judgment was passed by this Court, on 17.08.2009, wherein, CMA(MD)No.569 of 2009 was allowed and the case was remitted back to the file of the Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, for production of relevant document for proving that the claimant undergone amputation. The other appeal in CMA(MD)No.76 of 2009 was dismissed without costs. After the case was remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, 2 witnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and 1 document was marked as Ex.P11 on the side of the claimant. The Labour Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.1,94,007/- as compensation.

6. Against the award, the second respondent / appellant has filed this appeal on the following grounds:-

The Deputy Commissioner of Labour failed to consider that the first respondent was not having valid driving licence on the date of accident. The Labour Commissioner is wrong in enhancing the award amount, after the case was remanded.

7. On the above grounds, this Court, by its order dated 12.10.2012, has admitted this appeal on the following substantial questions of law:-

(I) Is it correct in law to direct the insurer to pay the compensation when the vehicle was driven by a driver holding a expired license?

(II) Is it correct in law to award compensation to a driver who has disentitled himself by driving a vehicle without having any license?

Issue Nos.I and II:

8. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that at the time of accident the claimant was not having the badge for driving a commercial vehicle, which amount to absence of valid driving licence. An official from the Regional Transport Office was examined as R.W.1 and he has deposed that badge in the LMV driving licence has to be renewed once in three years, but, the claimant has renewed the badge only on 07.04.2004 and that on the date of accident that is on