ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. HAZIRA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of a claim preferred by the legal heirs of a workman who died in the course of his employment. M.f.a. no. 1155 of 1992 is preferred by the insurance company disowning their liability whereas m.f.a. no. 1333 of 1992 is preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased workman claiming enhancement.

(2.) The deceased workman was employed as a driver by the employer to drive his vehicle. While he was driving an alwyn nissan vehicle cak 2839 belonging to the employer on 27-1-1989, it was involved in an accident resulting in his death. This fact is admitted. The legal heirs claimed that he was earning wages at Rs. 1,000/- per month and bata at Rs. 20/- per day. Compensation was claimed on the said basis. The claim petition was preferred on 26-7-1989 before the commissioner for workmen's compensation. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation.

(3.) While the employment of the worker was admitted, the main contest was whether the driver was entitled to drive the particular type of vehicle. This contention is raised in this behalf by, of course and as usual, the insurance company. What is contended by them is that the worker had only a licence to drive a "light motor vehicle" (l.m.v. for short) and the vehicle driven was a "medium goods vehicle" which he was not entitled to drive and, therefore, the workman was not "duly licensed" to drive the vehicle. According to them, alwyn nissan vehicle is a goods carriage coming under the category of medium goods vehicle and, therefore, a licensee to drive light motor vehicle cannot drive the said vehicle and that therefore, there is a breach of condition of the insurance policy. Hence according to the insurance company, in view of section 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, they are not liable to indemnify the amount awarded. The relevant clause in the insurance policy reads as follows: