HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 2726 of 2004 DATED: 03.03.2011 Between: The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. .. Appellant And 1. P. Sivamma 2. P.Nagaraju 3. P. Sulochana 4. P. Subbamma .. Respondents/applicants 5. K. Mahaboob Hussain ..Opp. Party JUDGMENT: The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Act”) challenging the order dated 07.11.2003 in W.C. No. 56 of 2002 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Cuddapah. The claimants filed the aforementioned W.C. alleging that they are the wife, children and the mother of the deceased – P.Nagesh. On 11.06.2002, while the deceased was on duty as driver of the lorry bearing No. AP04 T 4782 belonging to the 5th respondent herein, and on observing the Tractor - Trailor coming from Allagadda side with high speed, he suddenly applied brakes, and lost control of the steering, and dashed against the engine of the Tractor, due to which, the lorry turned turtle on the right side of the road, as a result, the driver of the lorry sustained injuries and died on the spot. The accident occurred while the deceased was in the course of employment. The lorry was insured with the appellant. It is stated that the deceased was aged 35 years and earning Rs.4,000/- p.m. at the time of the accident. Since the accident occurred during the course of employment, both the owner of the lorry and the Insurance company are liable to pay compensation to them. Hence, the claimants filed the aforementioned W.C. claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the fatal accident. Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company filed counter denying all the averments made in the claim petition, such as, the manner of accident, age, occupation of the deceased as well as the ineffective and invalid driving license pertaining to the driver of the lorry i.e. the deceased. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: 1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 and met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in death? 2. What was the age of the deceased workman at the time of accident? 3. What were the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accident? 4. What is the amount of compensation payable? 5. Who are liable to pay the compensation? In order to substantiate their case, the 1st petitioner got herself examined as AW1 besides examining one more witness as AW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondents, the Branch Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. was examined as RW1 and another witness as RW2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B5. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal directed both the owner and insurer of the lorry to deposit an amount of Rs.3,94,120/- towards compensation together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the accident till the date of payment besides stamp duty of Rs.788/-. Challenging the order under appeal, the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal. The learned Standing Counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company Limited appearing for the appellant has contended that the driver of the lorry was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and the licence he was possessing does not permit him to drive the lorry in question, which is Heavy Motor Vehicle, therefore, the driver of the lorry has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the appellant to pay compensation to the claimants, as such, he prays to set aside the impugned order. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent - owner of the lorry has contended that at the time of the accident, the driver of the lorry was possessing driving licence for both Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) which was issued in the year 1991 and the same was renewed in the year 1996 with appropriate endorsements thereon, therefore, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from its liability and cannot seek to completely indemnify the insured to pay the entire compensation, and prays that the appeal may be dismissed. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent, in support of his arguments, has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria &Ors.[1] wherein it is held as follows: “The Central Government has framed Rules known as The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 The word Form has been defined in Rule 2(e) to mean a Form appended to the rules. “I apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the following description: (d) Light motor vehicle (e) Medium goods vehicle (g) Heavy goods vehicle (j) Motor vehicles of the following description…” After amendment, the relevant portion of Form 4 reads as under: I apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the following description: (d) Light motor vehicle (e) Transport vehicle (j) Motor vehicles of the following description…” Rule 14 prescribes for filing of an application in Form 4, for a licence to drive a motor vehicle, categorizing the same in nine types of vehicles. Clause (e) provides for transport vehicle, which has been substituted by G.S.R. 221 (E) with effect from 28.3.2001. Before the amendment in 2001, the entries “medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle” existed which have been substituted by transport vehicle. As noticed hereinbefore, Light Motor Vehicles also found place therein.” Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. There is no dispute that the husband of the 1st respondent herein died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP04 T 4782. Insofar as the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the 5th respondent, who is the driver of the lorry, was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, is concerned, the Tribunal held that the deceased had been issued D.L.No. 1402/91 by Additional Licencing Authority, Cuddapah on 17.07.1991 and there are endorsements relating to the driving of both L.M.V. and H.M.V. and licence was renewed on 14.07.1996, as such, the liability on the Insurance Company is fixed for payment of compensation to the dependents of the deceased. Further, in the cross-examination of RW2, he has categorically admitted that there is no endorsement of heavy driving licence in their records in respect of the deceased - driver and he is not the signatory for issuing driving licences and there is no separate endorsement register, however he has also stated that the endorsements relating to both L.M.V. and H.M.V and the renewal of licence are similar in nature. From this version, it can be inferred that the deceased – driver of the lorry, was having a licence, which was renewed on 14.07.1996 with endorsements made thereon entitling him to drive both L.M.V. and H.M.V. The fact that the deceased was possessing an effective and valid driving licence is fortified by Clause (e) of Rule 14 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as extracted hereinabove, which provides that even before the amendment to the Rules in 2001, the entries “medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle” existed have been substituted by the transport vehicle. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation making both the appellant and the 5th respondent jointly and severally liable. However, the interest granted by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% p.a. is hereby reduced to 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 03.03.2011 bcj [1] AIR 2008 SC 1418