IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF November TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2764 of 2001 Between: Shaik Lal Ahammed. And others … Petitioners And N.Satyanarayana and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2764 of 2001 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in W.C. No.283 of 1997 vide order dated 13.03.2001 by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II Circle, claimants preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and also to fix the liability on the insurer of the autorickshaw involved in the accident. 2. The appellants are parents of the deceased Sk. Mahaboob Subhani, who died on 04-12-1997 due to the accident that occurred on 22-11-1997. The owner of the autorickshaw bearing No.AP 7U 5473 that involved in the accident and its insurer are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the W.C. before the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. 3. The case of the appellants before the learned Commissioner is that the deceased was working under respondent No.1 as driver of the autorickshaw bearing No.AP 7U 5473. While so on 22.11.1997, when the deceased was returning from Bethapudi in the autorickshaw after selling coffee powder, near Jonnalagadda village, while the APSRTC bus was coming in the opposite direction, deceased tried to turn the auto to the left side and in that process, autorickshaw turned turtle, as a result, deceased sustained multiple injuries. A case in Crime No.189 of 1997 was registered by the Narsaraopet Police Station and investigated into. Immediately after accident, the deceased was admitted in Government General Hospital, Guntur, where he succumbed to the injuries on 04-12-1997 at 11-15 AM. The deceased was aged 20 years as on the date of his death and was drawing a salary of Rs.1,500/- per month by working as a driver of the respondent No.1’s autorickshaw. Hence, appellants claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1, owner of the autorickshaw, filed counter denying the case of the appellants (petitioners in the W.C.) and his liability for payment of compensation. 6. Based on the pleadings, the learned Commissioner framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and sutained injuries in the course of employment? 2. What was the age of the deceased at the time of death? 3. What were the wages paid to the deceased at the time of death? 4. What was the loss of earning capacity suffered by him? 5. Amount of compensation payable and 6. Who are liable to pay the compensation?“ 7. To prove their case, father of the deceased got examined himself as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.R-1 was marked. 8. Based on the material available on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, the learned Commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs.1,83,848/- against respondent No.1 alone, owner of the autorickshaw, while dismissing the claim against respondent No.2, insurer of the autorickshaw, stating that the deceased was not possessing driving licence to drive the autorickshaw at the time of accident. 9. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and also seeking to fix the liability on the insurer of the autorickshaw as well, appellants preferred this appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Commissioner erred in not fastening liability on the insurance company in spite of the fact that the deceased was a workman of respondent No.1 and the autorickshaw that was driven by the deceased at the time of accident was insured with respondent No.2. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company contends that admittedly the deceased was not possessing driving licence to drive the autorickshaw, as such, the learned Commissioner has rightly refused to fasten the liability on the insurance company. 12. Since respondent No.1 has not preferred any appeal or cross-objections, there is no need to decide the question of proving the accident and his liability for payment of compensation. 13. Further, though the appeal is preferred seeking enhancement of the compensation also, the main contest of the appellants is for fastening liability on the insurance company. 14. Hence, the only point that arise for consideration is whether the learned Commissioner erred in dismissing the claim against the insurer of the autorickshaw, respondent No.2, for payment of compensation ? 15. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellants a reading of the evidence of the father of the deceased as AW.1, as revealed from his cross-examination, clearly disclose that the deceased had no driving licence to drive the autorickshaw. When the appellants themselves have admitted that the deceased has no driving licence, no further proof of the same is required. Hence, it can be positively held that the deceased had no driving licence. If that is the case, there is no question of the insurance company being liable for payment of compensation. Thus, I see no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Commissioner, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 29, 2010. lmv