THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.427 OF 2000 DATED: 12-11-2009 Between: The National Insurance Company Limited, Anantapur. ..... APPELLANT And Boya Chapala Nagappa & 9 others. .....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 25-03-1994, in W.C.No.9 of 1992 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Kurnool, wherein the claim of the respondents 1 to 6 herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.77,504/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.90,000/- on account of the death of the deceased-Boya Obulesu, who died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03-07-1990. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as driver of the tractor belonging to Kulapalli Narayanappa and that on 03-07-1990 at about 1.00 p.m. while the deceased was driving the tractor bearing No.A.P.A3678 and trailor bearing No.A.P.A.3679, as per the instructions of his employer, the vehicle overturned and the deceased fell underneath the tractor and died on the spot. A case was registered in Cr.No.33 of 1990 of Kambadur police station. Claimants further pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.850/- p.m. and was aged 20 years at the time of the accident. The vehicle was insured with the appellant. 4. The appellant filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Commissioner held that the deceased was a workman and he died in the course of employment as a driver of the tractor and that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.77,504/- and the appellant and the owner of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would mainly contend that the deceased was not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident and therefore the appellant is not entitled to pay the compensation. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants, on the other hand, would submit that the deceased was possessor of valid driving licence but the same was lost in the accident and the said fact was intimated to the lower Court by filing a memo to that effect. 8. It is not seriously disputed that the deceased was employed as driver by the 4th respondent herein in the tractor bearing No.A.P.A.3678 and trailor bearing No.A.P.A.No.3679 and that he died in the accident which occurred in the course of employment. The deceased is therefore a workman within the meaning of the Act and the respondents 1 to 3-claimants are entitled to claim compensation under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). 9. As seen from Ex.A4, the deceased was aged 20 years and the accident report-Ex.A5 shows that the vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurer. The learned Commissioner has taken the wage of the deceased at Rs.865/- per month, being the minimum wages fixed in G.O.Ms.No.111, Women Development, Child Welfare and Labour (Lab.III), dated 16-11-2008, and applying the suitable multiplier ‘7’ as per the Act estimated the compensation payable at Rs.77,504/-. The quantum of compensation estimated by the learned Commissioner is also not seriously disputed. 10. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the appellant-insurer is jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. According to the appellant, the deceased was not having valid driving licence. They did not however adduce any evidence to show the same. As seen from the impugned order of the learned Commissioner, the claimants have intimated the Tribunal that the driving licence of the deceased was lost in the accident by filing a memo to that effect. It is quite possible that the driving licence might have been lost in the course of the accident as the driver was supposed to carry the same on his person while driving vehicle. However, nothing prevented the claimants to obtain a duplicate copy of the driving licence from the concerned licensing authority and produce the same before the Court, but they failed to do so. Thus, the claimants have failed to establish that the deceased was having valid driving licence at the time of the accident. However, having regard to the fact that the accident has occurred in the year, 1990 and also that the claimants are poor villagers, it is considered inappropriate to modify the award passed by the learned Commissioner about fifteen years ago and deny the claimants of the benefit of the compensation on account of the death of their son. It is therefore directed that the appellant- insurer shall pay the amount of compensation, as awarded by the learned Commissioner, with a liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 11. In the result, subject to the above direction, the appeal is disposed of giving liberty to the appellant-insurer to recover the award amount from the owner of the vehicle in terms of ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD v. NANJAPPAN AND OTHERS[1]. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 12th November, 2009 Tsy [1] 2004 ACJ 721(SC)