IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 307 of 2009 alongwith FAO Nos. 314 of 2009, 633 of 2008 & 634 of 2008. Date of decision: 31.5.2011. FAO No. 307 of 2009. Smt. Vijay Kumari …Appellant. Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., & Ors. …Respondents. ......................................................................................................... For the appellant: Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. For respondent No. 1: Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents 2 to 4 : None. ......................................................................................................... FAO No. 314 of 2009. Smt. Vijay Kumari …Appellant. Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., & Ors. …Respondents. ......................................................................................................... For the appellant: Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. For respondent No. 1: Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents 2 to 4 : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. ......................................................................................................... FAO No. 633 of 2008. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd …Appellant. Versus Smt. Mimo Devi & Ors. …Respondents. For the appellant: Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 3: None. For the respondent No.4 : Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. FAO No. 634 of 2008. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd …Appellant. Versus Smt. Mano Devi & Ors. …Respondents. For the appellant: Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 3: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate For the respondent No.4 : None. For the respondent No.5. Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. : 2 : Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. These four appeals arise out of the award of the learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Chamba, District Chamba and are being disposed of by a common judgment, since common questions of law and fact are involved in the same. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Bus No. HP-48A-1112 owned by Smt. Vijay Kumari (hereinafter referred to as the owner) was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the insurer/insurance company). Sh. Suresh Kumar was the driver of the bus and Sh. Vijay Kumar was the conductor of the bus. The bus met with an accident in which alongwith passengers, the conductor and driver was also expired. The legal heirs of the driver and conductor filed two petitions under the Workmen's Compensation Act for grant of compensation. These two petitions were allowed. Hence the present appeals by the owners and the insurers. 3. At the time hearing when the appeals were admitted no substantial question of law was required under law. The only ground which is raised by the owner-insured is that the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation has observed “that late Sh. Suresh Kumar has driving licence which was not valid 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. for transport vehicles”. 4. Mr. Praneet Gupta appearing for the insurance company submits that once the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act came to this conclusion then he should not : 3 : have burdened the insurance company with the liability. 5. On the other hand Mr. Tarlok Chauhan submits that this finding itself is incorrect, since Sh. Suresh Kumar initially had a licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) which was later endorsed for Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV). The accident in question took place on 21st February, 2007 and now there is no distinction between goods vehicle or passengers vehicle and all transport vehicles come under one heading. 6. Therefore, it is obvious that the finding of the learned Commissioner that the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle is incorrect. Therefore, the insurance company was rightly held liable to pay the compensation. 7. Mr. Praneet Gupta learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the insurance company should not have been held liable to pay interest. The insurance company led no evidence to show that it was not liable to pay interest as per the terms of the policy. It is, however, clarified that the burden to pay penalty cannot be fixed on the insurance company. Therefore, even in case the amount has not been deposited within time penalty shall not be imposed either upon the insurance company or upon the owner. Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge 31st May, 2011. (Krn Guleria)