(1.) The original claimants have preferred this appeal challenging the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation whereby com-pensation was awarded to the appellants but the respondent No. 2 insurance com-pany was absolved from the liability to pay compensation.
(2.) Undisputed facts are that deceased Nakul Singh was the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3. He was working as a driver on the truck-tanker bearing No. MH 11-F 5099 belong-ing to the respondent No. 1. On 30.4.2000 deceased was on duty as a driver of that truck-tanker. As per the directions given by the respondent No. 1/employer, truck-tanker was loaded with Beesol chemical for transportation from Rasayani in Raigad District to Belgaon. When the tanker was passing through the Mahabaleshwar area, it fell in the valley on 1.5.2000 and as a result, driver Nakul Singh died on the spot. He died in the course of his employment. Claimants contended that the deceased Nakul Singh was getting wages at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month and at the time of his death, he was aged about 35 years. Notice was issued to both the respondents for settlement of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Respondent No. 1 also informed the respondent No. 2 insurance company but the compensation was not settled. The appellants claimed an amount of Rs. 1,97,060 as compensation. Respondent No. 1 admitted the claim in all respects. According to him, after the acci-dent, he had requested insurance company to settle the claim of the claimants but the insurance company did not co-operate and, therefore, the claim could not be settled. He also pleaded that the tanker was duly insured with the respondent No. 2 and, therefore, insurance company is liable to pay compensation.
(3.) Respondent No. 2 insurance com-pany contested the claim denying all the allegations made by the appellants. Their main contention was that the deceased was not holding a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle, including vehicles carrying inflammable goods, and there was breach of condition of insurance policy and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.