(1.) Assailing the judgment and order dated 24.08.2013 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub- Division II, Hubballi in WCNF No.55/2012 appellant insurer is before this Court.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant insurer that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has committed an error in saddling the liability on the appellant Insurance Company inspite of the fact that the driver of the said vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the hazardous goods. He further submitted that as per the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, in the list of hazardous goods at Sl. No.1656 petroleum crude oil is classified as hazardous goods and as per Rule 9 of the said Rules, the driver carrying the hazardous goods imposed in addition to the transport license must have an endorsement to drive the hazardous goods vehicle. He further submitted that admittedly the driver of the said tanker was not holding the said endorsement. As such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. He further submitted that the Commissioner has committed an error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, without there being any documents. As per the amendment to Section 4, the maximum amount has been stated and the said amount has to be fixed by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, it is not that Rs.8,000/- has to be fixed in all the cases. He further submitted by drawing the attention of this Court to Section 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act that the Commissioner who has passed the award is not having any qualifications as contemplated under Section 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. He further submitted that as per Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, before filing the claim petition, the claimant must issue notice of the accident and without being any notice, no claim for compensation shall be entertained.