THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.417 of 2001 JUDGMENT: One Mr. Dhanekula Muralikrishna, son of respondents 1 and 2 was employed as a Driver by the 4th respondent to work on a zeep bearing No.AP-7V- 2531, which is insured with the appellant. On 06.12.1994, the vehicle met with an accident near Layola Public School at Nallapadu on dashing against a lorry and Muralikrishna died. Stating that he was being paid salary of Rs.1,200/- per month and that he was aged 30 years when he died, respondents 1 and 2 filed W.C.Case No.116 of 1995 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, Guntur (for short ‘the Commissioner’). A sum of Rs.83,192/- was claimed as compensation. The case was opposed by the appellant; and the other respondents remained ex parte. It was pleaded that the deceased did not hold valid driving licence and that they are not liable to pay compensation. Through order, dated 11.07.2000, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.83,359/- as compensation. The same is challenged in this C.M.A. Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client has proved beyond any pale of doubt that the deceased did not hold valid driving licence and still the Commissioner awarded compensation against them. He submits that R.W.2, a clerk from the R.T.A. clearly stated that Ex.A.3, the driving licence relied upon by respondents 1 and 2 was a fake one. Sri Korrapati Subba Rao, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 on the other hand submits that though R.Ws.1 and 2 deposed in their chief- examination that Ex.A.3 is not valid, in their cross- examination, they have admitted their ignorance about the matter. He further submits that the Commissioner has examined the matter from the correct perspective. The occurrence of accident and the fact that the deceased was employed with the 4th respondent are not disputed. Before the Commissioner, the 2nd respondent deposed as A.W.1 and he filed Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the appellant, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.2, being copy of the policy and validity certificate respectively, were filed. The principal ground urged on behalf of the appellant is that he deceased did not hold valid driving licence and in that view of the matter, they are not liable to pay compensation. On their part, respondents 1 and 2 filed Ex.A.3, a driving licence. The appellant doubted the genuinty of Ex.A.3 on the basis of a report said to have been obtained by them by an Investigator. Investigator was not examined as a witness. On the basis of the report said to have been submitted by him, they approached the Office of the R.T.A., Guntur. From them, a letter-Ex.R.2 to the effect that the licence-Ex.A.3 was issued in favour of a different person, was obtained. Obviously to buttress this contention, the appellant examined R.W.2, a clerk from R.T.A. Guntur. This witness however is not the licencing authority and he did not say that any steps were initiated in respect of Ex.A.3. A vague and general statement that Ex.A.3 was not properly issued cannot be a ground to deny the compensation payable under the Act. The Commissioner has placed reliance upon certain decided cases, which are to the effect that even where the driving licence held by an employee is found to be fake, the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is payable. Though the genuinty or otherwise of a driving licence may have its own impact upon the claims made under the Motor Vehicles Act, its relevance under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is minimal. What becomes important is the existence of the relationship of employer and employee and the coverage of insurance. The Act does not insist that the compensation would become payable only when the employee possessed a particular certificate or licence. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal. Therefore, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 30.11.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.417 of 2001 Date: 30.11.2011 JSU