FAO No.15 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.15 of 1998 Date of Decision. 05.08.2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., having its regional office at Sector 8, Chandigarh through its Manager ......Appellant Versus Smt. Santra Devi widow of deceased Jai Dayal son of Shri Sher Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The insurer is in appeal contending that the deceased was travelling on the tractor sitting on a mud-guard and the claim arose out of the death caused by the over-turning of the tractor and the death resulting therefrom. It was brought out in evidence that the deceased was a workman under the owner of the vehicle. 2. While I would hold in favour of the insurer that the workman could not have travelled on the mud-guard still if it ultimately results in death, the risk to the workman and the corresponding liability of the employer would require to be compulsorily covered by virtue of the provisions of Section 147(2) proviso. For a negligent act done by the workman, if it results in death, the employer shall still be liable under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The application should have been FAO No.15 of 1998 -2- filed only before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and this Court being a Court of Appeal could still, therefore, consider the claimant's entitlement to compensation for the death of the workman. The amount has been assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.1,68,000/-. The deceased was 35 years of age and the relevant factor that would be applicable would be 197.96. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,00/-. The total amount of compensation worked out by the formula provided under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation would still be not less than the amount awarded by the Tribunal. I do not, therefore, propose to make any modification of the award. 3. The insurer still urges for a point that the driver did not have a requisite licence to drive the tractor. He had a heavy transport vehicle licence endorsement and he was driving a tractor, which did not conform to the particular category. The learned counsel refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS. Zaharulnisha and others 2008 ACJ 1928 that a licence for higher category will not amount to a valid and effective driving licence. The insurer shall have, therefore, a right of recovery against the insured. 4. The liability of the insurer shall be to satisfy the claim of the claimants and recover the same against the insured. The appeal is allowed to the above extent only. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 05, 2010 Pankaj*