ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. GUDDI BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Insurer") filed under Sec. 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act") is directed against the Award dtd. 8/5/2019 passed by the Commissioner under Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Jammu (hereinafter called as "the Commissioner") in case titled Guddi Begum and others v. M/s Gill International Ltd. and another. The impugned award whereby the Insurer has been held liable to pay an amount of Rs.9,26,753.00 to the respondents 1 to 7 (hereinafter referred to as "the claimants") has been challenged by the insurer primarily on the grounds that the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, late Sh. Mohd Younis, who was driving the offending vehicle was not holding the valid and genuine driving license and therefore, the insured could not have been held liable to pay compensation to his legal representatives, i.e., the claimants herein.

(2.) Briefly put the facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are that the offending vehicle, a petrol Tanker bearing registration No.HR 55H-9448 belonging to the respondent No.8 was insured with the appellant insurer vide policy of insurance, which was valid w.e.f. 16/1/2016 to midnight of 15/1/2017. The respondent No.8 had employed the deceased Mohd Younis as driver to drive the offending vehicle. On 5/4/2016, when the offending vehicle being driven by the deceased Mohd Younis was going from Jammu towards Srinagar to unload the oil, it met with an accident near Shalgari and fell into deep gorge. The deceased received serious injuries and died on spot. The claimants herein filed a petition for compensation before the Commissioner on the ground that the death of Mohd Younis had happened in the accident that had taken place during and in the course of the employment of the deceased with the respondent No.8. The FIR registered with the Police Station, Banihal with regard to the accident was relied upon by the claimants to substantiate their averments made in the claim petition. The claimants pleaded and contended before the Commissioner that the deceased at the time of accident was getting Rs.15000.00 per month as salary from the respondent No.8 and was about 45 years of age. They also claim that prior to the filing of the claim petition, they had tried to settle the claim with the respondent No.8 but the respondent No.8 showed no interest, which constrained the claimants to file the claim petition. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the claimants lodged a claim for compensation of Rs.25,00,000.00. The Commissioner entertained the claim petition and put the respondent No.8 and the appellant insurance company on notice. The appellant insurer resisted the claim by filing its reply.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner framed the following issues:-