AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Present appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 21.3.2012 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Sub Division 1, Bangalore in WCA/CR 81/08F.
Parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
The grievance of the learned counsel for the insurer is that there was no relationship of employer and employee between deceased Mohammed Ameer and respondent No. 3 Saraswathamma in whose favour the insurer had issued the insurance policy relating to the vehicle bearing No. KA-02-D4223. The deceased Mohammed Ameer, who was the husband of claimant No. 1 and father of claimant Nos. 2 and 3 was stated to be working as driver under respondent No. 2 M/s. SLV Tours and Travels which is having its office at No. 50, Magadi Road, Bangalore. The respondent No. 3 has the same address as that of respondent No. 2. The accident occurred on 25.7.2008 in which the driver Mohammad succumbed to injuries. A claim petition came to be filed by the wife and children of the deceased Mohammed Ammer before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. The learned Commissioner has awarded in all a sum of Rs. 3,06,180/- with interest.
The present appeal has been admitted on 12.1.2015 to consider the following substantial question of law:
"whether the W.C. Commissioner has committed illegality and perversity by ignoring the materials placed on record in regard to non-existence of relationship of employer and employee and valid D.L. on the dte of accident?" 5. What is argued before this Court by the learned counsel for the insurer is that there was no jural relationship of employer and employee as per the Workmen Compensation Act existed between the deceased and respondent No. 3 in whose favour the insurer had issued the insurance policy.
Admittedly, policy of insurance is marked as Ex. R-1 and the name of the insured is Saraswathamma residing at No. 501, (0) Magadi Road, Bangalore 560023. Ex. R-2 is the letter addressed by the insurer to the insured Sarawathamma w/o Janardhana No. 50, Magadi Road, Bangalore and the address of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are one and the same. If Saraswathamma was not the owner of respondent No. 2, her address would not have found a place as No. 50, Magadi Road, Bangalore in Ex. R-1 and R-2. The very letter at Ex. R-2 discloses that Saraswathamma was the owner of the respondent No. 2, M/s. SLV Tours and Travels for all practical purposes
What is argued by the learned counsel for the insurer is that PW-1 has deposed that M/s. SLV Tours and Travels belongs to respondent No. 3, Saraswathamma''s brother whereas in the cross examination, PW-1 has specifically asserted that vehicle as well as the travels belongs to respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2 was the brother of respondent No. 3. Suggestion put to her that there was no relationship between respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has been specifically denied. It is not suggested to PW-1 as to what was the name of the owner of the respondent No. 2, Travels. The address of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is one and the same. M/s. SLV Tours and Travels was owned by respondent No. 3 in whose favour insurance policy has been issued.
In the light of the insurance policy relating to vehicle being in force, insurer cannot avoid the liability. Another ground what is argued by the insurer is that the deceased did not have valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. Reliance is placed on Ex. R-3 Driving licence of the deceased. He had possessed driving licence which was valid from 18.11.1998 to 14.8.2008 to drive Light Motor Vehicle- Non Transport (LMV-NT). Admittedly, the accident took place on 25.7.2008 i.e., in between these two dates. It is further argued that vehicle in question was a transport vehicle and therefore, he did not have proper endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. He has placed reliance on the validity of the driving licence.
In the cases of Kulwant Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and S. Iyyapan Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, , it is held that merely because the driver did not have endorsement to drive the transport vehicle, the insurer cannot avoid the liability. Even otherwise, he had obtained valid driving licence to drive the non-transport LMV and it was valid from 18.11.1998 to 14.8.2008
In this view of the matter, the impugned order does not require any interference. There is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Commissioner.
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed by confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal.
Parties to bear their own costs.