NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL OFFICE, BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY Vs. ARJUN SINGH, S/O SRI. UDAY SINGH, SMT. CHANDRABATHI, W/O SRI. ARJUN SINGH AND TATA MOTORS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd Respondent/insurance company in CR. No. 6/2007 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Chitradurga has come up in this appeal challenging the liability to pay compensation to the claimants fastened on it in the said proceedings by order dated 11.5.2010.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are: The case of claimants is that their son Umesh Kumar driver of lorry bearing No. MH. 12/0871 belonging to 1st Respondent and insured with 2nd Respondent met with an accident on 30.9.2004 in the course of his employment. The said accident took place between Hiriyur and Shira on NH. 4 near the land of Shanmukappa resulting in injuries leading to his instant death. Hence, parents of deceased filed claim petition against his employer/1st Respondent and insurer of the said vehicle/2nd Respondent, seeking compensation for his death. In the said proceedings on behalf of claimants 1st claimant adduced evidence and produced in all 12 documents in support of their case, which are at Exs. P1 to P12. On behalf of insurance company an officer of insurance company adduced evidence and produced in all 16 documents, which are marked as Exs. R1 to R16.

(3.) 2nd Respondent insurance company being aggrieved by the same has come up in this appeal contending that it has produced in all 16 documents before Commissioner to demonstrate that deceased Umesh Kumar was not having valid driving licence at the relevant time of accident. The licence, which is produced and relied upon by claimants, is fake document. In view of the fact that deceased was not having valid driving licence at the relevant time there is violation of the terms of policy issued by insurance company. It is also the ease of insurance, company that according to intimation received from RTO, Jaipur, if the fake driving licence said to have been issued to deceased Umesh Kumar is accepted as genuine, he would be a minor as on the date of issue of licence. Therefore, based on the documents the relationship of employer and employee between deceased Umesh Kumar and 1st Respondent cannot be accepted and there is error on the part of Commissioner in allowing the claim petition fastening liability to pay compensation on insurance company.