Insurance company appealed a workmen's compensation award for the death of a driver, contending he had no valid driving licence. The court held the insurer failed to prove absence of licence and dismissed the appeal, upholding the award of Rs.4,47,920/-.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.A.(MD)No.1936 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 21.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
C.M.A.(MD)No.1936 of 2013 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2013
The Branch Manager, M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., No.6, Polly Towers, NO.1, 4th Floor, Ralak Street, Saithapettai, Chennai-15. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Sagunthala
2.A.Thamizponmzhi
3.K.Balamurugan .. Respondents
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, against the order passed in W.C.No.208 of 2007 dated 15.10.2012 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Thiruchirappalli.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran For Respondents : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj for R3
C.M.A.(MD)No.1936 of 2013
: No appearance for R1 & R2
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant as against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Thiruchirappalli, in W.C.No.208 of 2007 dated 15.10.2012 wherein the respondents 1 & 2 herein have filed a claim petition for the death of one Ponmanaselvan, who died during the course of employment under the third respondent herein. The respondents herein filed a petition for compensation before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-alleging that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Ponmanaselvan, who was died in an accident and he was working as a driver under the third respondent. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,47,920/- towards compensation. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the insurance company has preferred this appeal.
C.M.A.(MD)No.1936 of 2013
3 . The brief averments of the petition filed before the Tribunal
are as follows:
The petitioners are the mother and sister of the deceased. According to the petitioners, on 16.01.2007, when the deceased Ponmanaselvan was driving the third respondent's vehicle Ambassadar Car bearing Registration No.TN49-Y-8397 near Vellanur on the way to Lalgudi, met with an accident and died on the spot. He was 21 years old at the time of accident and he was earning Rs.4,500/- per month and thereby, the petitioners claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
According to the second respondent/insurance company, the
C.M.A.(MD)No.1936 of 2013
deceased has no valid license on the date of accident and thereby the first respondent violated the conditions of the policy, therefore, the second respondent is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
the petitioners, PW1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked. On the side of the second respondent, RW1 & RW2 was examined and Ex.R1
& Ex.R2 were marked.
(i) Whether the Commissioner has failed to hold that the deceased Ponmanaselvan was not having driving license at the time of accident?
(ii) Whether the Commissioner is right in holding that the Workmen's Compensation Act does not mandate that the employed driver
Act?
C.M.A.(MD)No.1936 of 2013
should possess the valid driving license in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act?
C.M.A.(MD)No.1936 of 2013
investigation officer was appointed by the insurance company. He is none other than the employee of the insurance company. Therefore, based on the investigation report of the investigation officer only, they stated that the deceased has no valid license on the date of accident. The tribunal, after consideration of all the facts and circumstances, correctly awarded the compensation for a sum of Rs.4,47,920/-. Since the first respondent insured his vehicle with the second respondent, the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation and he has not examined any official from the RTO office to prove his contention. Therefore, the order passed by the tribunal is in accordance with law and the same is to be confirmed and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
C.M.A.(MD)No.1936 of 2013
Ponmanaselvan was not having driving license at the time of accident?
(ii) Whether the Commissioner is right in holding that the Workmen's Compensation Act does not mandate that the employed driver should possess the valid driving license in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act?
Substantial Question of Law No:1
C.M.A.(MD)No.1936 of 2013
the RTO office concerned. Further appellant insurance company failed to issue notice either to the owner of the vehicle or to the petitioners to produce the copy of the license. Therefore, without any evidence, the insurance company cannot say that the deceased had no valid driving license on the date of accident. The tribunal relied on the judgment of Jammu and Kashmir High Court reported in 2006(109)FLR23 (J&K) in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Mst. Noora, wherein the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir held that if the driver is employed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the provision of the said Act nowhere prescribed that he should possess a valid driving license, as in terms of mandate of Motor Vehicles Act.
C.M.A.(MD)No.1936 of 2013
case, already the driver had valid license and the same was not renewed in
time. But in the case on hand, the insurance company had taken up the only plea that the deceased had no valid driving license but the owner has not denied the license of the deceased and thereby the above facts of the case are distinguished.
that the insurance company has failed to prove that the deceased had no license on the date of accident and the tribunal correctly held that the deceased was holding the license on the date of accident. Accordingly, the first Substantial Question of Law is answered.
16. Substantial Question of Law No.2:
The Commissioner based on the judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the Workmen's Compensation Act does not mandate that the employee driver, who possess valid license in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act. But the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment stated supra, clearly stated that in an appeal arising out of Workmen's Compensation Act, the possession of the driving license of a driver is
C.M.A.(MD)No.1936 of 2013
necessary and thereby it is clear that even as per the provisions contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act when the driver is employed in a Motor Vehicle, he has to posses a license to drive the vehicle. Therefore, the findings of the Commissioner that as per terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act, there is no mandate that the employee should possess driving license is not accepted. Accordingly, the second Substantial Question of Law is answered. In view of the above said discussion, it is clear that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable award and warrants no interference.
21.02.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No PJL
C.M.A.(MD)No.1936 of 2013
To
C.M.A.(MD)No.1936 of 2013
P. DHANABAL,J.
PJL
C.M.A.(MD)No.1936 of 2013
21.02.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the insurance company proved that the deceased driver had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident?
Whether the Workmen's Compensation Act mandates that an employed driver possess a valid driving licence under the Motor Vehicles Act?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Mst. NooraRelied on¶12
2006(109)FLR23 (J&K)
Beli Ram v. Rajinder KumarDistinguished¶14
2020(2)TNMAC 445 (SC)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Branch Manager, M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Sagunthala
A.Thamizponmzhi
K.Balamurugan
P. Dhanabal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
