THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1134 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 14.07.2009, in W.C.No.12 of 2008(F) on the file of the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy District, wherein the said claim application filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, was allowed awarding Rs.4,29,931/-. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased-Shiva Kumar, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 09.04.2008 during the course of employment as a driver. According to the applicants, on that day, the deceased while on duty as driver of the tractor bearing No.AP 28F-4248 was proceeding with load from the hills of Erdhanoor village outskirts and on the way the vehicle met with an accident resulting in serious injuries as a result of which he died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.85 of 2008 was registered by the Sangareddy Rural police. The applicants further pleaded that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.4510/- per month besides batta of Rs.100/- per day. 4th respondent herein-owner of the tractor, filed a counter admitting the employment of the deceased and also the wages earned by him and contending that the vehicle is insured with the appellant- insurer. Appellant filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability. 4. During enquiry, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the applicants. R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked on behalf of the appellant-insurer. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the deceased was employed on the tractor and trailer by the 1st respondent and the death of the deceased occurred during the course of the said employment. The said finding is not seriously challenged. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,29,931/-. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the deceased was not having a proper and valid driving licence and therefore the terms and conditions of the policy have been violated. 7. Admittedly, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurer is not liable if the driver was not holding a proper and valid driving licence. According to the appellant, the deceased was holding only T & T Non- transport licence, whereas the vehicle involved in the accident was a transport tractor and trailer. 8. A perusal of the licence-Ex.A6 of the deceased would show that the licence was issued for driving non- transport/transport vehicle and the class of the vehicle is noted as M.C.W.ST & T. As seen from Ex.A6, the deceased was not restricted to drive any particular type of vehicle and on the other hand, it shows that he was holding the licence to drive non-transport/transport vehicles. The licence also specifies that it was issued for driving a tractor and trailer. 9. Learned counsel for the applicants would contend that R.W.1-owner of the tractor has admitted in the cross- examination that he used to hire the tractor for commercial purpose. 10. There is nothing on record to show that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was under hire and in the course of such hire transaction, the accident has occurred. It is also not suggested to R.W.1 in the cross- examination that at the time of the accident the vehicle was under hire to some one else. In his statement, R.W.1 stated that he used the vehicle for commercial purpose. It cannot be said that at the time of the accident the vehicle was put to unauthorized use. The contention of the appellant that the driver was not having a valid driving licence therefore remains unsubstantiated as the evidence on record, particularly the driving licence-Ex.A6 shows that the deceased was competent to drive the transport and non-transport vehicle, particularly a tractor and trailer. The contention of the appellant that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was put to unauthorized use also remains baseless. The evidence on record does not disclose that there has been any violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and that there is a conscious violation of the policy on the part of the 3rd respondent- owner of the vehicle. In the absence of any such evidence, the appellant-insurer cannot avoid its liability for payment of compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the course of the employment, when the said risk is duly covered by the terms and conditions of the policy. The age or wages of the deceased as taken into consideration and the multiplying factor adopted by the learned Commissioner is not disputed. 11. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned award does not call for any interference by this Court. It is open to the appellant-insurer to work out the other remedies, if any, available under law against the owner of the vehicle. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th September, 2011 Tsy