IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.1234 OF 2005 Date:08.12.2009 Between:- United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep.by Senior Divisional Manager, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Opposite Party No.2. And Matta Nagaiah Goud and others .. Respondents/Applicants and Opposite Party No.1 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.07.2005 passed in W.C.No.52 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour IV, Hyderabad wherein the claim of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.4,16,321/- for the death of the deceased Matta Krishnaiah Goud. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the records. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation for the death of their son-deceased Matta Krishnaiah Goud, who died in an accident in the course of his employment as driver on lorry bearing No.AP.28 T - 5980. Respondent No.3 is the owner of the lorry and appellant herein is the insurer. 4. The owner of the lorry filed a counter admitting the employment of the deceased and his death in the accident that occurred in the course of employment. The appellant filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability. 5. During the enquiry, claimant No.1 was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A- 10 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 was examined on behalf of the appellant and Ex.D-1 copy of the insurance policy was marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Commissioner held that the deceased died in an accident in the course of his employment as driver of the lorry and that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,16,321/-. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. 7. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was granted license for driving Heavy Transport Vehicle (HTV) on 23.09.2000, though he has not completed the age of twenty years, his date of birth being 15.06.1982 and the same is violative of Section 4(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, “the Act”), which lays down that no person under the age of twenty years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place. Ex.A-6 – driving license of the deceased would show that though the license was first issued on 23.09.2000 after the deceased attained the age of eighteen years and before he completed twenty years, subsequently, the said license was reissued on 30.11.2002 for driving the heavy transport vehicle. The accident occurred on 07.09.2004. Thus, by the date of the accident, the deceased was aged more than twenty years and he was having a valid driving license issued on 30.11.2002 for driving the heavy transport vehicle. In view of issuance of the fresh license on 30.11.2002, basing on which, the deceased was driving the lorry, the fact that by the date of original issuance of the license on 23.09.2000, the deceased has not completed the age of twenty years, is of no consequence. In view of the issuance of fresh license on 30.11.2002, which was issued only after the deceased completed the age of twenty years enabling him to drive the heavy transport vehicle, it cannot be said that there has been any contravention of the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act. 9. The quantum of compensation as awarded by the learned Commissioner is not disputed. In the circumstances, it is held that there are no valid or justifiable grounds to interfere with the Award passed by the learned Commissioner. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ G. V. SEETHAPATHY, J 8th December, 2009 AMD