THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A. No.552 of 2005 JUDGMENT: Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed W.C. Case No.13 of 2002 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mahaboobnagar (for short “the Commissioner”) claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. It was pleaded that Vakiti Ramulu, son of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and brother of respondent No.3, was employed as a labourer to work on a Tipper bearing No. AP 26 U- 5481, owned by respondent No.4 and insured with the appellant. On 24.01.2002, the vehicle is said to have fallen down on account of rashness on the part of the driver of the Tipper and that Ramulu sustained serious injuries in it. He died on the next day while undertaking treatment. It was pleaded that the deceased was being paid Rs.4,000/- per month as salary and that he was aged 21 years at the time of his death. Respondent No.4 remained ex parte. The case was opposed by the appellant alone. It was pleaded that the insurance policy does not cover the liability arising out of the death of the deceased. It was also alleged that the driver, who was on the seat at the relevant point of time, did not hold valid driving licence and thereby, the conditions of insurance policy were violated. Other grounds were also urged. Through order, dated 30.12.2004, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.2,54,000/- as compensation with interest from the date of filing of the W.C. Case. The said order is challenged in this appeal. Sri E.Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the liability for the appellant would have arisen if only the vehicle was driven by a person holding valid driving licence and that in the instant case, the specific plea that the driver did not hold valid licence remained unrebutted. He further submits that the Commissioner erred in awarding the interest from the date of petition. He has placed reliance upon the decided cases. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, on the other hand, submits that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. It is also stated that the question as to whether the driver of the vehicle holds valid licence or not, virtually becomes immaterial when the person who died in the accident was a labourer. He contends that the Commissioner awarded the amount strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,1923 (for short ‘the Act). The Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the deceased Vakiti Ramulu was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and died due to personal injuries received in the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment? 2. What was the age of the deceased at the time of accident? 3. What were the wages paid up to the deceased at the time of accident? 4. What is the amount of compensation payable? 5. Who liable to pay compensation? On behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were filed. The fact that the deceased was employed as workman with respondent No.4 virtually stood unrebutted. The only person who could have disputed that allegation was respondent No.4 and he did not choose either to file a counter or to depose as a witness. The appellant also did not seriously contend that the deceased was not employed as a labourer with respondent No.4. A strong objection raised on behalf of the appellant is that the driver of the accident vehicle did not hold valid licence. Virtually, no evidence was adduced in this regard. Assuming that the driver did not hold licence, that hardly would be of any relevance in determining the liability arising on account of the death of another workman. Though Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 mandates that an insurance policy taken out in respect of a vehicle shall cover the one arising under the Act, the grounds that can be raised by an insurer in this regard are relatively restricted, compared to the claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The fact that a workman, as defined under the Act sustained injuries or died in the course of employment would give rise to award of compensation and once there exists a valid policy, the insurer has to indemnify the employer. The manner in which the vehicle was used or the question as to whether the driver had a licence, would be of little relevance in this regard. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant. The Commissioner awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition. Such a course would be permissible, at the most, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in determining the claims under that enactment. The Act provides for a different procedure. A combined reading of Section 4 and 4A of the Act would disclose that the liability to pay interest and particularly by the insurer would arise after expiry of one month from the date of adjudication. In National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Mubasir Ahmed[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held so. The same was followed by this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pujala Chenchu Nagaiah[2]. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co .Ltd. Vs. Mohd Nasir[3]. A perusal of the said judgment discloses that the judgment in Mubasir Ahmed’s case was not overruled and only a passing reference was made. Further, discussion in that case mostly turned around the scope of Section 4A of the Act. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed directing that the interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount awarded by the Commissioner shall be from the date of expiry of one month from the date of order passed by the Commissioner till the date of deposit. In all other respects, the order is upheld. It is made clear that in case the appellant is of the view that it has any right to recover the amount from respondent No.4, it shall be open to it to initiate necessary steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:14.12.2011. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. kdl [1] (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 349 [2] 2011 ACJ 1868 [3] 2010 (1) ALD 74 (SC)