[ 3253 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1118 OF 2011 Appeal Under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 24-02-201 1 in WC.No. 141 ot 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad. Between: Fareed Shaik, S/o Shaik Azeemuddin Auto Driver R/o Chandrashekar Colony, Nizamabad ...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT AND 1. Sabeer Ahmed, S/.o lbrahim Major, Auto Owner R/o H.No. 6-23-902, Gouthamnagar, Nizamabad A.P. 2. National lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Br. Manager, 1st Floor Atchireddy Complex, Arundelpet, Narsaraopet , Dist. Guntur (RR-1 & 2 are restored vide court order dated 28.08.2023 in CMAMP.592 of 2017) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. K. M. MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Smt. P. SATYA MANJULA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: NONE APPEARED The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLD SMT, JUSTICE M.G.PRIYAD ARSI}II Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11 18 of 2O1l JUDGMENT: Aggrievcd b1, the order- datcd 24.02.2O\ I in W.C.Case No. 141 of 2OO/+ (l',1F l passcd b]. thr,' Comrlissrorrer tbr Workmen's Conrpensatron ;,rnd Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, the applicant filccl the present appeal. 2. fror the sake of convenience, liereinafter, the parties rvill be referrcd as pel thcir arraf irclorc Lhe Comrnissioner. 3. Tire bricf facts cf the casc rr;.c rfrat tLrc applicarrr has filed an appircatiorr lrnder lht) 1;rt-rvisionlt of Workmen's Compensation n ct, 1923 (arne nr,led as Ernployecs, Compensation Act, 1923) clarrning compcnsaLion of Rs.5,O0,O0O/ allcging thar hc rv:rl; r:mployed b1, Lhc opposit_c: part),No. 1 as d|ivcr on auLo l:caring l\o. Air 25'l'582ii, orvncrJ by opposite pa:ty No. 1, ernplol,q:1, in,';rtred u'irh opl.,ol;ite parly No. 2, insurer. It is statecl that on lS.I2.2OOj, upon the instructions of oppositc part)r I.{o. i, emplr.ryer, thc ztpplicant in discharge of his duties :rsi rii ivcr, \,as procccding from Gundaram to Nizarnabad. AL iibaut O8:45 1.,.nr., u,hcn the said auto rezrchcd neai ra ilu,i.r], tracli salar)gapoor goclou-n, in order to avcrt hrttilg a i.>r_rf[a]o, ..vhir:,,r s,as crosslng t.hc rr:a.d. thc MGP,J aNrA 1118 2011 applicanl applied sudden breaks zrr-rd the said auto dashed lhe railway gate pillars, due to which, the said auto turned turtle' As a result, the applicant sustained fracture to his right wrist' right collar bone, left leg, 5rr' & 6h ribs of right side chest and other multiple grievous injuries all over the body' Immediately' he was shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital' Nizamabad and later, he took treatment in private hospitals' Based on the complaint, the Railway Police Nizamabad registered a case in Crime No. 70 of 2OO3 under Section 337 of IPC. According to the applicant, he was hale and healthy' aged about 25 years and earning salary of Rs 4,O00/- per month and batta of Rs.2O/- per day as driver under the employment of opposite party No. 1, employer. Due to the accident, he suffered permanent disability and lost his earning capacity Hence' the applicant has hled the application claiming compensation of Rs.5,O0,000/- against the opposite party Nos' I and 2' who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation' 4. Before the Commissioner, opposite party No 1 filed counter contending that the applicant was employed as labour under him and paid salary ol Rs'4,0O0/ per month' He admitted that the applicant sustained injuries while discharging his duties during and in the course of his employment' He further stated that since the said auto was insured with the 2 t -) ]t GP,J c\tA rrtS 20t I opposite party No.2, Insurance Company, r,ide policy No_ 550506/31/03/6702634, which i.r,as valid from 19.08.2003 Lo 18.O8.2OO4 and the driver of the said auto i.e., applicant was possessing valid driving licence, the opposite party No.2, Insurance Company, is liable lo pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the application against him. On the other hand, opposite party No.2, insurance company, filed counter denying the averments of the application such as employee- employer rclationship, salary, age of the applicant and manner of accident. He further contended that unless and until it is proved that the applicant sustained injuries during the course of his employment and the driver of the said auto i.e., applicant having valid and effective driving licence, the Insurance Company is not 1iable to pay the compensation. It is lastly contended lhat the claim is excessive, exorbitant and finallv prayed to dismiss the application. 5. On behalf of the applicant, AWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A. 1 to A.11 were marked. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of FIR, Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of injury certificate, trx.A.4 is the certifred copy of scene of offencc, Ex.A.5 is the certified copl, of criminal details form, Ex.A.6 is the attested copy of 161 Cr.p.C. statement, I 4 \lGP..l clr.\ ll l8 2011 Ex.A.7 is the photostal copy of RC, Ex.A.S is thc photostat copy of form PC, Ex.A.9 is the photostat copy of insurance policy, Ex.A. 10 is the photostat copy of driving licence and Ex A' 11 is the disability certificate. On behalf ol opposite party Nos' 1 and 2, none was examined but Ex.B.1, photostat copy of insurancc policy, was marked. 6. The Commissioner after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, by determining the wages of applicant as Rs.2,934/- per month, loss o[ earning capaciry as 650/o arrd by applying the factor '276.91' for thc age of injured being 25 years, along with advocate and stamp fee of Rs'996/-, has awarded compensation of Rs.2,49 ,197 I - . 7. Dissatisfied by the impugned order, the applicant has filed the present aPPeal. 8. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party No 2, lnsurance Company and Perused the record. g. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that though the applicant was incapacitated to do all works, which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident, the Commissioner ought to have assesscd the loss ) \lCP.J ('\1,1 I l3 201 I ol disabilir,v at I O07u I{r: lurther contcnclcd that Commissioner ought to hzlve taken the monthly income of the applicant at Rs.4,000/- instead of Rs.2,934/ zrs the sarn.'\\'as;rdrnittr:tl l.rv tlt<r o1:posiLc paIt,\/ No. I, cm1>lovr:r IIc Iastly pral'eC to allorv the appeal by enhancinl3 the compensation. 10. The applcant hirnscll w'as examincd as AW. l, vi,ho has reiterated thc avermcn ts of the application in his chief examir-ration. In support of his contention, the appUczrnt goL cxanlined the rlot:tor, ..rv h c.r trt'atccl him al thc timc (,1- thc accident, as l\\i'. 2. AW. 2, who is the consultant Orthopcdic Surgeon and lormcr Civil Assistant Surgeon, Govcrnmcnt lJeadquarLer tiospital, Nizamabad, deposed ttrert on O'2.12.2OO9, he t:xarrincd thc applicirnL clinically, physic:ali-v and found fraclurc o[ distal radius right, liacturc ol right clavicie malunired with united fracture of l-ibia lelt leg and I-racture o[ 5,r' rrncl 6'r' ribs right r.l'ith shor-tlicr hand syndrome rigfrr Lrppcr lirnb, eprsodes of pain tn decp breathing, cor,rghing, cannot do hard rvork, sit or stand for long time ernd as the applicant cannot do hard rvorl<, he itssc-ssed rhe ciis.rbiIt-y at (r5(2, pcrrnanent partjal and l()ss ol calning capacitr' at 55ouu. AW. 2 further deposed tha[ the 6 \1ci, .I C\t \ I 3 20t1 injurics mentioned in Ex.A. 1 1 arc corre spondirrg to t hc injuries mentioned in Ex.A.3 rnjury certificate. Hc lurthcr deposed that the applicant cannot do clri.rer's job with the sanre efficiency as eallier. AW. 2 isstred Ex.A- 11 disabilitl, certificate to the extent of 65oh. 1 l. In the United India Insurance Company Limited v. S.K.Razak and otherst, the High Court for the erstr.vhile Stare of Andhra Pradesh held as follows: " What is of signL,fi.cance in the euidence of both the pilnesses is that theg ltaue spoken on the disabi.lity suJJbred. bg the claimant as a diuer, Neither of them haue deposerl that the disabLement has reduced the claimants eaming capacitg in euery emptoAment uhich lte tuas capable of undertaking ot that time. As noted aboue, the claimant htLs merely stated that he is not utorking angtuhere else, front tuhich it can be inferred that though. he is capabLe oJ' underlalcing utorks other than driuing, he is not unclenakrng such tuorks. In order to be entitled for 1OO% o-f loss of eaming, it b necessary for the cLaimant to proue that Lrc u.,as not onLy disabled to driuer, but aLso to perform ang other work uhich he u-tas capable of performing at the time of accident. The Commissioner hos therefore committed a seious error in taking the los.s of earning capacitg at 100,/a u.ttthout considering the fact that the claimant tuas capoble of perfurming u.torks other than diuing." 12. Further, in T.J.Parameshwarappa v. the Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited and others2 the Honourable Suprcmc Court held as undcr: ''8. The percentage of permunent disability is expressed bv lhe l)oclor,t wilh re/ercnce to the whole body, or nore olten thon nol, \t,itlt reference lo a parlicular linb. When o disability certlicate stolcs thut 'MANU/Ap/o 9/20t5 I MA N U / SC/ I 5 r 0/2022 1 !l (i I,,.1 ('\t:\ II)3 20 tI tl t iDl ti,Ll lu: :ttffararl |crutt t(nt li\Llhilitl'to un exlent o.f J:"t' o/ the la/t lrntLt ltnth it is oot lllt'suna i.\ 15o,4 Peruonent disuhlii tt'ith r(krcn(( ro rlt' t ltla bocl.v. 7 he e.ttent ctf disabilit.t' ttJ u linrb /or Purl of tlrc hod.t t t'\pt'!.\\cd in larnts oJ u percenldge oJ the lolal .t'turctittns o/ thtrt linb, (,htit)u.\l.t cunnol bc) usrlt.rmecl to he the exlenl oJ di.:abiltty oI the y.holc bo,lt l/ tlrcr c is 60'.ti' pernrtnent di.sabilio" of the righr knil ond ,\0t;i, I ) t, t t t t , t I t t' t t t Llisuhilit.t ,tl lr.li lcg, rt cloes nol ttkdn thLtl tlrc t'.\lrnl of l(,rDtun(tlt Jr.whilrh,, t|ith rcfarance lo lhc whole bod,t, ts 1111'.r, ,,nn, ,.t \0'7, 1tltr.: 00'.,,,) 1/ di//erent purts oJ the bodt have .sufft'recl ,iilferent p(r((itdl!(.\ ol li.:;ubilities, llrc .\un totul I lrcreo.[ cxpra ss ed in ternts o/ lhe p!rntut(t1t lr:fiilitl v ith re.fert'ni'e to llle v,hole botl.v, cannot obt iousl.t 13. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar3 [he Honourablc Supreme Court hcld as Llnde r I (2Ot ll I sc('.:l'1:l I I lir li.ihtuLtl \hould nol bc u silenl .spectalorthen nulictl ttt,latttL' ts ttttlcrctl irt rcgLtrd tu lh( tnJurie\ unl thcir e/k(1, in luttt( ul tlr (\lL'nl of prl' tqncnl lisubiitly'. ,\<r,tions 168 ond 169 o[thc ,1(t DttAL it et'tdt'nt thut tht' l ribunrti J(re.\ ,tol tunction aS a ncutral urtryirt'u.t itt tt tivil \uil. hul os d t.tclit t' explorer ond saakcr ct/ trttth vrlrt r rLquircl to hold Ltl enquin into the c'luim'Jor detcrntining llrc 'iu.\t ('t)utl)t,n\dtiotr' The I t ibunol should thcreJore ldke an oclir( rol( lo u.t<t'rttrirt tlr tne und corract posilion \o lhql il can ossess lhc jusl tontlx,nttrtitttt' llhtle deuling u'ith personrtl injury cases the 'lribunul slrttrld yelaruhll cquip itltl/ tvith u Medical Dicliotrtrv und t IlrutdhrvtA lil.L.r,tluutiorr of ltt,rnunurl ph),.\iLal impairmenl lfor tonplc thr' \hrrttul lrt l-tulnrtirtn of PL'rnrunent Phvsicul Impuirntent lor ()t tfu)l)(di ,!ra,?.'rrl.r, prt'ltrrLtl h: ,lrncricen .4cudenty o[ ()rthop(diL ,\urgaorts ttt tt.; lntliun cquit'ulent or olher dulhorEed te.rtst .fbr d(t.\tttkliug tlt' nrcdicul evidcnc'c tnd .;sses: i/rg the physral ond ftlctionLtl Llr.:uhilitt'. The '[ribuntrl nruy also keep in vretv tht' .lirst thelulL, lrt thL ll'ttknen'.t ('t)ttpttt\ution Act. 1923 n'hich gitcs stnrc i ic'ttiirttt thout tlte c.\te tof pcrnutrcnt di.\ohili+'in d!fferent 'ytt': o/ injur!t's. ttt tltt t'rr.tr: of torkntcn. lI Q I)oclor giving eritlence usc.r tL'chtitttl rttrLliLtrl tcrD^ tha T ribuncl .\lt() ld tt1.\lrucl hint l() \tLttr ttt ttrldttiott. ttt ttltltlL, nott-tttt'dittt/ tcrttts, l it<' ulttre (tn(i lhc cl/t,t ri tlr ttlur.t' !f u ,kxtrtr givet et'itlence oboul lhe percenlog:c oJ P('rnrunenl di5uhility, tlrc lrtbunul lruS lo .teck clariliculion us ttt whether suc'h pcrc?ntuga ,tl di.sttbilitl,, i.s the.functional dis(tbilily tt'illt re.lbrerre lo lha thola bULlt or thethcr it r.s onl.v y,ith rsference to o linl' !i the p(rtotlt!!1, rtf 1t,,t.urttrcnl ltwbility i:.stated vith tcfere La to i lit h, lh( l)'tbunt:l ttll llttL' tt) \c(k tl. , doLlrtr'.s ttpittkttt u.s to ttheth,!r tt L\ potsihlc tr' ,ltrltrt' tlt<' it)n t.\i)t)ndtng .fitn( ltoilttl nL'r nnt'ttt tiisohtlit't rttli r(frr,'tt L' trt tlt t lutlt ltttlr ut il .;tt llrc P(rLt: lugc. 8 cIlA I I r3 20t i 12. 'lhc Tributt(ll should olso act t lh coltlon, iJ it proposcrl to accept lha cxperl evidence o/ doctors tho did not tt.eat the injurul but ttho gite 'ready to use' disability certificates, without propar nedicul u.\st.\snrcnl. T here ure set'er0l inslonce.\ of un.scrupulou.s clot.lors t.fut rith(,ut trtuling lhe inlured reutlill, giving libcrd tlt.suhilitt (artilittt(\ to halp lhc (luim(nls. lJut thcrc thc tlisuhility ccrtifi(.ute! ure giten lt dul.t. ct)n.\titulad tlleditul Bourd:, rhc_v rna1, bc uccepled sublc.t ht avilcuce rcgardittg the genuinenes.:; o/ such certtrtclttes. The Trihunal nuy invuriobly uruke il q poinl to rcquire the eridence of the Doctor y,lto lrealed lhe injured or vho assessed lhe parmanent disability. Mere production of a disabiliry certirtcorc or Discharge Certifcute ttill not ba proof of thc txtcnt of di.\obility .ttatcd therci unlcss tlrc l)octor v,ho trput.,d thc clqinunt or y'ho nrcdicoll) cxumineel und us.te.;setl the extertl tt/ cli.urhility <tf claimunt, is tenderecl .fir cross- crantinution u.ith reference to tha certirtcuk. lf the Tribunal is nol sdtis|icd A,ith thc neclicul tvielence producccl b1, the cluimqnt, il cqn conslitule a lllcdical Boartl (ron a panel maintaitrcd by il in con.sultatiott witlt reputed local Hospitqls/Medical Colleges) and refer tlE claimant to .such l,lcdical Board Jor o.s.resstnent (d the disabilily.' 14. Thercfore, this Court is of thc considered vieu, that the learned Commissioner after collsidering the evidence of AWs. I and 2, oral and documentary evidence, has rightly assessed the percentage of disability and loss of earning capa(.ity irl consonance with the evidence of AW. 2 and thereby this Courr linds no reason to interfere with the percentage of disability as asscssed by AW.2 and as fixed by the Commissioncr ir-r computing the compensation. 16. With regard to Iixing the wages of the applicant, the applicant claimed to have received Rs.4,000/, per month as salary. The opposite party No. 1, employer, in his counter admittcd that he has paid Rs.4,OO0/- per rnonth [o thc applieaq!. However, the Commissioner has fixed the monthly k q wagcs o[ rhc erpphcant at Rs.2,9341- by considering the minimum u,zigcs prevailing at the relevant point of time in pursuancc ol thc (i.o.Ms.No.30, LET & F (Lab-ll) datcd 27.O7.2OOO. 'fht' Commissioner did not consider thc salary of the applicant at Rs.4,0O0/- per month on the grounds that applicant ciicl noL llle any r>thcr doclrmentaly evidcnce in proof rrl saian' pzrril Ll. thr: oppr.rsiic lrarti' No. ) , cmploy<:r. In Mamta Devi v. The Reliance General Insurance Company Limiteda, the llonourablc Strpreme Court heid as under: "I I) Ilrtuinrl rcaurd to th" object ctf the Act tLthich etlutsuqt,:; ill.s;rr:nsalron r.r/' sor-icrl jttstir:e, we are ol tl.te rxt.l:;r,-1crctI uieut Ihat !lrc Depulu l,al;our ()ommissir.rner- curn (.irrrrnrt;siorter for Vktrkmen Compensation feLl in error in ctrriuirtg at a conclusion that cLaimants' i.ncome is to br: conslruted at RS.3,9OO/ p.m. or the minimum wage lo be cotnputed shr.tuld be at Rs. I 5O/ - pe-r day i.n the attsen<'c' ol ortq proof o.f int.ome. 'fhe tuitten st.Ltement f led lttl titL: t'ntployc.r u,ouLd be tt c.omple-te aftsuer ta tl7[s, |,r.r:!-r]rr1('/i .r.s rl r.s crle(/ont'aIlq udntiLted b11 the emy:tlotler lhtit rlctt r-serl rr.rcrs tlrtttuing Rs.6,OO(),/ per tnonth cts uta91es. lhe clc<:eased u.tus a Lruck cliuer and had four rnouths ro .ft ccl clt the tim? of his dent.tse in the gear 2(-)11. BA n.o slretch o.[ imagin.ation, can be construed that in.come rthich he was eorning as claimed by his tuife, in her stak,rrrcrrf made on oal.h can be constnted qs 3xcc.s.s/rr.,. t)r nol corLrrLensurele Luil,h the u,ages earned bq a truck clrtuer ut lhe L.leer 20 i L 12) 'l'hus, the ireststrbte conclusion ruhich tue lutue to drutu is, lLte unchallengeci statement of the utfe of the deceasetl tuho had deposed that her husband u,as eantng Rs.6,OOO/ per month deserues to be accepted os gosytel trullt. l4'e see rLo reason. for disl:elteuing her stetetiTctLt . " 'ltl2l 1+1..rt.tl.lo rsi I NI C P.J Mr\ llliJ 2(lll l0 17. Therefore, by consiCering the prrnciple laid down in the above said citation and since the opposite party No. 1, employer. has categorically staled that the applicant was paid Rs.4,OOC/- per month as salary, this Court is of the view that the Commissioner erred in reclucing the wages of the applicant and by considcring the minimurrr \.ages inslead of considering the salary admitted by the opposite party No. 1, employer. I{ence, this Court is inclir eci to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner, so far as salary of the applicant is concerned and thereby the salary ol the applicant may be considered at Rs.4,OO0/ per month while calculating the compensation. 18. The sole contention of the learned standing counsel for the insurance company is that the applicant was not having valid driving licencc to drive the auLo at the time of the accrdent, thereby, the opposite party No.2 is not liable to be pay any compensation, more particularly in view of the violaLion of policy conditions. Ex.A. l0 i.e., driving license of the applicant disclosc that the applicant was l-raving valid driving licence. Even as per tl-re evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2, it is not the casc ol the opposi[e party No.2 that the applicant w,as not holding any license. It is pertinenl to note that if at alt the applicant was noL\lrolding driving license, certainly the Railway Police, \4(] P,J c!1A lr 16 20i L &t lt \1CI) J c\.tA IIts 201I Nizamabad, t'ould hat'c regisLered the case against the applicant undcr thc provisions ol Motor Vehicle Act for contributory n(igligcncc on the part of the applicant apart from registering thc cilsc under Sections 337 of the Indran Pcnal Code, hon'cvcr. Lhcre is no such ilrstance in the case on hand When two vicu s arc possible, the view that is benefici:rl to the claimants has to bc Laken, sincc the Workmen's Conrpensation Act is a bcncfir:ial icgislation meant to protect the interest of r:mployees et nrl rvorkers. 19. ln United India Insurance Company Limited v. Annakutty and anothers, u'herciu il r.vas held by Kerala Higll Cou rL as urrcir:r. ".1. 1t i.s ctrt aclrnitteri cuse thal the deceased workrnari LUes (7rL ernployee of lhe insured cLnd that the accultznt occurued tttltil.e he uos dit'itig the jeep ctnd th.e accldent resuLted in his death. tt was cn 28.3.2002. Vlten the accident has resulted it tlrc deat.h of the uorkman, necessariLy clause (b)lii) o.f the prouiso to Section 3 of the Act iL,ill lraue no ctppltcatiort. Wtllul disobeclience oJ tnr order or ntLe expressly frrtmed for the purpose oJ' securtn.g such safety like the insislerrcr: of a dnuing licence utill haue bearing going bg the said prouision, only in respect of ang [njury not re,;ulti.ng irL the death of rtte utorkman. flettssnr ilq ct'en if tltr,' u'as Lt.rLU t'ottlratettlton of lltr' 1tr,',.,1519rts ctJ'lnt.u. lhe cotnperLsQttort sltall haue Lo lte paLd L;g tlte erttpLoger uthere euer death oc'curs as a result oJ the accident. When there tt,os o uctlid insrtrance policg, t.ltat liability \06(r)s('rlr.i .I t2 c\]Altt820l shalL be on the insurer. Therefore absence of diuing licence cannot be taken os a reason to deng the compensation, in cases like this tohere the occident rest ted, admittedlg in the deoth of the worknan." 20. It is pertinent to state that even for the sal<e of argurrents if we accept the contention of the learned standing counsel for opposite party No.2 as true, mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualilication of thc driver for driving at thc relevanl- time, are not in themselves defences available to tl-re insurer against either thc insured or thc third parties. 2l. The High Court [or thc e rstwhilc State of Andhra Praclesh in the United India Insurance Company Limited v. Sri Mohd. Khaleel Khan and others6, held as under: "9. The prouisions of Workmen's Qglll]21rySaltary !9! no tuhere prescibe that i[ a driuer is ernplo.qed he slroulrl posse.s.s ualtd licence as is required in te rms of the mandate of lqatAf Vehicle.s f,ct 1939. Th[s uieu is forlified bu the judqnterLt of I'Iot1'ble Htqh court of Kantatka titled Oiental ltsuronce Co. Ltd. u. Hazira Bequm and others reported in MANU/ KA/ 0384/ 1994, it is profitable to repr<tducc tlrc para 9 of the judgment herein: ''9. A scan o[ uarious decisions of the Hiqh court tuill disclose that uhere a u..torkman utas enqaqed in the emploLler's business ond uhct utas doinq tlae ueru thtnq he u.tas emploqed to do, then tl'Le mere fact that he uas not actinq stnctlu bu the Letter of law uill not make the accidett anu the less 'ans[nq out of and in lhe course of dnploLlmenl. It ft.tltouts, Ihere[ore, the otuner ancl insurance cotnpanA are both liable in such att euent." " CMn No.8t2 of2005 decided on 14.10.2015 NlC I'.J I \T,\ t|3 201I 22. It is pcrtinent to note that the claim of thc applicant is liled under thc provisions of Iimployces Compensation Act, u'hrch r.lo not mantlatr: LhaL il a clrivcr is cmployed he should posscss valid licencc as is required in terms of the mandate of Motor Vchiclcs Act 1939. Flo'",,,ever, in the case on trand, the applicant - ctnplol'cc'"vas hllVing drl"'ing liccnse to drive the said auto 23. In Oriental Insrrrance Company Limited \'. JimmyT, the Kcrala t{igh (lourt hcld as un(lcr: ".'j. 'l'le emplctqer and ettpLotlee relationshrp cannot be disp'ctted by the cLppeLlctnt. The accidet alsc is nol tlisputed. ln sttclt cit'cumstance,s, LrJhethe-t the u,orlsnart did hctue a proper licence or not, ttthether he Ls o Wirenutn, u Br:iler Operator ctr Diue, as the Luse ntLiq be, i.s nor a nTetter for the corlcem o-l the tnsLLre-r. When Lhe, insurer tnd unde-rtaken th.<t liabditg rhat irctd fallen u{)on the insured, necessanly the insurer has to discharge thctt burLTen. If there s uiolation of the policg conclillcn"-, Lh.e insurer c:att seek eppr()pri ut c rr: rnedy. " 2-4. The othe r Bench of this Court in New India Assuran.ce Company Limited v. Smt.N.Anjilamma and five others3 held as undcr , 2004 AC,.t 900 d CIVA No 4-/6<) <)i .).OAtl clcr:iclcrl ,rn 27 10.)O2) 14 " 1 3. A perusat of the judgment in Suaran. Singh's case (1 supra), it tuould disclose that the Hon'ble Apex Court hetd that the breach of policg condition e.9., disqualiftcation oJ diuer or inualid d.iuing licence of tlrc diuer, as contained in sub- section (2)(a)(ii) of section 149, Ltnue to be proued to haue been committed bg the insured for auoiding liabititg bg the insurer. Mere absence, -foke or inuaLid diuing licence or disquahfctttion of the diuer for driuing at the releuant time, are not in themselues defences auailable Lo the insurer against either the tn-sured or the third pdrties. To auoid its tiabilitg totuards insured, the insurer lns to proue that the tnsured u.tas guilty of negligence and faited to exercise reasonable care in the natter of fulfilling the condition of the policg regarding use of uehicles bg dtttg ticensed diuer or one u,ho u)as not disqualified to dliue at th_e releuant time. The insurance companies are, hotueuer, u.tith a uieut to auoid their liabilitg tnust not only establish the auaiLable defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must o"Lso establish 'breach' on the part of the otuner of Lhe uehtcLe; the burden of proof utherefor utould be on them.. 'Ihe court cartnot lag dotun a ny cAteria as to hou..t the said burden u,tould be dischargecl, inasmuclt as the same utould depend upon the facts and, circum-s tance of each cctse. Euen tuhere lhe insurer ls abte to proue breach on the part of the insured conceming