M.A.(Q No v. BESPONDENTS

MH 31 W 7749 dashed the above vehicle from opposite direction and on account of which the vehicle was damaged and respondent No.l/claimant was pressed in steering thereby he received various injuries on the body viz. right thigh was broken, right leg below knee was also broken and his bone and flesh had come out and the toe of right leg measuring 3" was cut. Therefore the claimant was admitted in B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, where he has taken treatment from 27.07.2008 to 01.10.2008, but even after treatment his right leg became permanently disabled. With the aid of crutches the claimant can walk slowly, but he cannot drive the vehicle. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged 30 years and was getting Rs.5000/- per month. 3] The respondent No.i/claimant had-filed a petition under Section 22 ofthe Worlunen's Competfsation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act, 1923') before the Commissioner for Workmen's 'the Compensation, Labour Court, Jagdalpur Commissioner') and the award of Rs.3,09,474/- has been passed in favour of the respondent No.l/claimant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim and also penalty of Rs.1,54,737/- payable by the respondent N0.2.

(for 4] We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record ofthe lower Court as well as the impugned award. 5] 6] Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that at the time ofthe accident, the respondent No.i/driver was not having a valid and effective driving license. It is evident that the accident had occurred on 27.07.2008. The license was issued to the driver/claimant on 02.09.2008. Earlier the license was issued to the driver/claimant on 27.04.1998, which was valid up to 26.04.2018, but for the purpose of driving transport vehicle and heavy vehicle it was valid for the period from 16.06.2003 to 15.06.2006. On the _N^- ^.^^ ^^a, ""i K'\ .i?%y.^^ 7] 8] 9] Jl application by the driver/claimant it was renewed for the period from 02.09.2008 to 01.09.2011. Thus, it is clear that on the date of accident the driver/claimant was not having a valid and effective driving license and in that event the Insurance Company ought to have been exonerated from the liability.

It is further evident that though the issue N0.4 was framed regarding breach of the conditions of the insurance policy and discussions have been made, but no specific issue was framed regarding valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case to remit the matter back to the Commissioner to decide such issue and thereafter, make an award. In the result, we allow this appeal impugned award and remit in part, set aside the the matter back to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for decision afresh. ; Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents or get the documents verified etc. ifthey so desire, and then to pass an award afresh. 10] The amount if any, deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company shall remain in deposit and shall not be disbursed and will be subject to the award to be passed afresh. 11] The parties 10.04.2012. appear before the Commissioner on 12] The records of the Commissioner shall be sent back forthwith. 13] No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge