LAWS(KAR)-2019-7-533

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. JAYALAKSHMI

Decided On July 23, 2019
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
V/S
JAYALAKSHMI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.05.2010 rendered by the Labour officer and Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Sub-Division-6, Bangalore in Case No.CWC:FC:CR:19/2008.

(2.) It is stated in the claim petition that claimants are dependants of deceased Mallesh, aged 26 years, who died in the accident dated 21.07.2008 while driving Tempo No.KA.51/1351 belonging to the 6th respondent. They filed claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of said Mallesha. The same has been averred in the claim petition made by the claimants. Even after dispute, neither the claimants nor the owner of the vehicle gave details of the DL held by the deceased nor that the deceased had added peril to his life by indulging in driving a transport vehicle without holding any kind of licence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that while making the insurance company liable to pay the compensation under a motor policy, the Commissioner has ignored Section 149 which disentitles the insured to claim indemnification of the Award. Further, the Commissioner has ignored the fact that the deceased is not a third party and he steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle while driving the goods vehicle. Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates the owner to ensure that the vehicle is entrusted to a person possessing effective driving licence and Section 3 imposes obligation on the person engaged in driving to comply with the driving licence requirement. If these two requirements are not complied, the insurer cannot be made liable to indemnify the insured. The insured did not even furnish the details of the driving licence held by the driver at the time of accident while submitting claim form as per Ex.R2 and that the respondent did not produce the DL, if any, held by the deceased to drive a transport vehicle. Therefore, the Commissioner acted contrary to law in making the appellant liable to pay compensation assessed for the death of person who had engaged in driving a goods transport vehicle without possessing any kind of licence. Hence, sought for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Labour officer and Workmen Compensation Commissioner.