The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the execution of the orders, dated 25',01-2012 in WC.No.1 of 2007 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Sangareddy, Medak District including withdrawal of money deposited by the petitioner pending the above appeal before this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. V. Samba Siva Rao, Standing Counsel Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2: Mr. S. Sudarshan Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Mr. K. Jamali The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I - THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUM,AR JUKANTI CIVIL MISCEL LANE OUS APPEAL No.12 0 of 2OL4 JUDGMENT: . This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed agg;r ieved bv order clatecl 25.01.2012 passed in w.c.No. r of 2oo7 on the file of the Commrssioner for Employees, Compensation e r_rd Assistant Comrnissioncrr ol' Labour, Sangarcddr., Meciak Dis.rrct (for short 'the Commissior-rer,).

2. Heard Mr. V.Samba Siva Rao, learned Star-lc1ing Counsel for appellant -Opposite part1, No.2, Mr. S.Sudi.ir_l lran, Iearned cotrnsel for respondent Nos.1 ancl 2 ancl Mr. K.JarnaI, Iearned counsel for respondent No.3. 3 Substa,tiar qucstion .I rari, rarised ls ,r.he*Ler the deceased driv er u,as holding anv clriving licen se as required under 1arv, as pcr the terms and conditions of polLcy. That the liability being fixed or-r the Insurance Compan,r inspite of the owr-rer/employer not takrng proper care to sce ivhetlrer Lhe driver was holciing a driving license at the time ol. cr nplol,n-1sn1. -I-\ \l -F. -+_ri i .l 2

4. Respondent Nos. I and 2 are applicants/ claimants before the Commissioner for Emplovees' Compcnsation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Sanea Reddy.

5. Begari Shiva Kumar (4 Shivaiah @ Shiva (deceased) was under the employment of Opposite Partv No.1 (owner of DCM Van bearing Registration No.AP 09 X 2080) with a monthl_v sa1ary of Rs.6,000/-. During the course of employment, on i0.08.2005 at 03:00 A.M., thc vehiclc dashed to a road-side tree near the outskirts of Reminnaguda Village on Rajeev Rahadari. Driver sustained injurics w,as shiftcd to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, for treatment, he succumbed to injuries (at 0B:15 A.M.) and passed au,ay.

6. A case in Crime No. 107 ol 2005 for offence punishable under Section 3044. of IPC q,as regrstered by SHO P.S. Gajwel. The SHO held inquest, Mcclical Ofhcer conducted autopsy. On the death of bread-winner in the family, respondent Nos.1 and 2 I clairr,ants lapplicants sought payment of compensation from the Opposite Parties refused by tliem, hence, thc claim. 3 I 7 . Learned Counsel for Appellant (lnsuralc c Company) submitted that the deceased, driving the said D,IVI \/an No.AP 09 X 2080, at the time of acciden[, did r-rot have : va]ic. driving license, therefore, the on ner/employer is liabk to pay the compensation and no liability can be lastened on .he lnsurance Cornpan-1,. It is further submiLted that thc cmplo-r'< r', at the time of employing the deceased as driver, has [o confirrr u'hether the employee (dnver) has a valid driving license or' lrot. Learned counsel relied on the judgments o[ Hon'b1e i\pex C]ourt in National Insurq.nce Compang Limited. u. Sutan an Singh and othersl and Beli Ram u, Rajinder Kumar d.nd another2 and contended that it is the duty of employer to verifr rnd arscertain t hr:thcr thc emplovcc (driver) possesses a valicl d riving license or not, in the absence of which, the liability canrr(,t be iastened upon the Insurance Company

8. Learned counsel for Insurancc Comparrr has placed further reliance on the judgment of learned Single .Judge of this Court in C.M.A.No.250 of 2011 and contended r [-rat employer . (2004) l scc 297 ArR l0l0 sc 4451 I 4 has to check the driving license of the employee (driver) whether he u,as duly licensed to drivc the vchiclc. That in thc present case the emplo-r,er handed over the vehicle to the employee (driver) without taking reasonablc care to vcrifv and ascertain about the license, that there is violation of the policy condltions, therefore the Insurance Company' is not liable to pay compensation.

9. Learned counsel for Insurance Company submitted that the onus lies on lhe ow'ner of the vehicle to check the documents i.e. driving license of the emplol'ce (driver) bcfore handing over the vehicle. [n thc facts of the case, on which the counsel for Insurance Company relied, i.e., National Insurance Co. Ltd., Hgderabad u. Jada Muthgali and others3 , the owner of the vehicle rr'as examined, but, in the present case, the owner of the vehicle is not examined. This judgment is not applicable to thc [zrcts of this case.

10. Learned counsel for lnsurance Company placed on record an interim order passedhn 06.O7.2O12 in C.M.A. M.P.No.1203 ' zozz (s) nro qzo (rs) 5 ol 2012 in C'.NI .A.(SR|.No.20776 of 2Ol2 (this _'\,lA). Learned Sinqle .Jucigc p.ranted interim stav of rr'ithdrau irl o[ zunounts er r-rd is still it-r lil'ce 1 l Learnecl counsel for respondents/claima n ts strbmittecl that it u'as th<: dut1, 61 Opposite Party No.2 i. ., Insurancc Cornpan-r' to pro\/e whether there was a valid d r r i ng li.lcnse at thc timc of accident, as it is the contentiou of Insurancc Cornparr-i th.,rt the deceased (driver) \\.as not poss.ssinq a r.alid <lrir irrq lrc:cr-ts;c. 'lhat. ot-ius lics on the Insnrarrr.t Conrlt:tnr Lo aclcluce eviclr:nc e, prove that the deceased (d -i, er) ,,vas not posscssing a valid driving license. Lcarned cr rnsel further sr-rbmittccl that the Insurance Companv did nr,t ex:rn-rine the ItTI aulhorities to substantiate the contenlit,n, Lhat the clcc-eetsecl (driver) ivas holding a valid driving lice,nse cr not at thr. Limc ol'deatlr datcd 10.08.2005. | 2 . Learnecl counsel placed reliance on the j r rdgmr:n t of a lcarned Singlc .Iudge of this Court in C.M.A.N,I t76 ,tf 2012, irrr iLc-cl the irttcntior-r of this Court to paragral--lr No.2l and conlcndcd that facts are simr]ar in the present ,.rrsc zrnd that .-- \ \l 'F f"-.l 6 the [nsurance Companl, u.as at libertf' to rccover the amount deposited from the owner of the ve hicle in Execution Proceedings

13. Heard learned counsels, perr-rsccl thc record and considered the rival submissions

14. Commissioner examincd u'itnesses PW 1 and PW2 for respondents/ applicar-rts, RW 1 for lnsurance Companl . Exs.A 1 to A5 are marked on behalf of applicanrs, Exs. B I and 82 are marked on behalf of Insurance Companr'. Ex. B I is lhe pohc,v copy. There is no dispute with regard to Lhe fact Lhat as on the date of death (10.08.2005), policl'u'as it-t cxistence

15. Learned Commissioner considered the cntire factual matrix of the case and concludcd as lollorls "... Moreover, it is the wcll scttlcd proposil-rot-r of lar,'' that 'he who pleads should prove, ers per rvhich, in the instant case, the Opposite PeLrty No.2 I'rtrving plcadcd that the deceased was not having driving liccnse, should prove the same ald ottght to have examined thc concerncd R.T.A olhcials so to asccrtilirl thc truth, il an]'. RW2 also admittcd that they did not r'\ en ascr'rl ain i y such information from thc conccrncd R.T.A. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its dccision reported in 2OO5 ACJ 543 {K.Laman \'. Unitcd lndia lnsurance Company Limited) ruled that compcnsation cal bc 1 gr:rnr(.([ r,r the l(,gitl heirs of the drtvcr, who dicrl ,luring, tlrtt t.or rst ol- ( 1ll)lo\-ment. lt is, thereforc, he]rl LI .lt th( ( )l)l)osl (' ,tirLr \o 2 lailed Lo prove thitt the rl,.( ( asc.l (1, i\ cr (ltal ltot lla)ss(.ss drrving hcensc.,,

16. Insurance Company lailed to prove that the rlriver did not possess driving license, a compensation of 1. s.4,O2.96gl_ tog( thcr \\'ith (.ourr lce ol Rs.80O/ and Adv )cate lee of Rs. I ,000/ torzrlirlg to Rs.4,O4,768/- u.as ar.r,ardecl .

17. ()ppositt Part-r No. 1 being the orvner of Llre vehtcle is r, icirrroLrslr lrir[rlc [c;r. the acts of dcr:cased (c :-ivcr1. Ttrat lnsLrrzrrcc c.lnpzin' being the insurer or crime r.,r'rrrcle is liable to rrrclcmni[1 Opltosite Party No. I (owner), both cr,.ner. and the InsLtrzrnce Cornpanl. are jointly and severallr, lralrl to pa1, Lhe coIIl Il(, n s:r tro n

18. Or-r a pcr usirl of rhe judgment of the learnecl iingle. Juclge of tlris Cor:rr i. C'.NI.A. Nct.776 ci 2012, it is obsc,ri, .d th^r lacts arc sirnil.r zr.cl <;.ntc.tr.,s raisccl are similar. \\'l cther.drit,cr u'as possessinq ar valicl driving license at the tim -, of accide nt, that the ouner of the vehicle has to verify the ,i,.ense belore hanrlrns o\,er tll(, r.ehiclc to tl-re driver. In the pr(.s;. nt case, rhe osner of the rrtlticle cntcred appearance, [here is r (r statemcrtt 8 .-Nh recorded in the order, whether owner \\.as examrned or not. On a query by this Court, it is submitted that excepr hling vakalar, oq'ner did not file counter affidavit nor did he enter the u,itness box. This Court is not inclined to take a different vierv to that of the [earned Single .Iudge in C.M.A.No.776 ol 2012. The learned Single Judge held as follows: "...However, consrdcring thal the Worl<mcn s Compcnsation Act, 1923 is a bcncficial lc!{isl.ttion and its the compcltsatior.r amount ,"vas :rlrcadr dcpositccl br tl.rc Ir)surance Compary r,,.hilc preferring this appeal. tl.ris Court llnds rt reasonable to dircct ttrc insuralce Compan). ro ru:covcr the same from the respondent No.5 _ O.p. I ou,ner ol the vehicle in Execution procecdings. Thc O.p.2 lnsurance Company is at liberty to recover thc amount of compensation already deposited by it from the orrner of the vchicle in Execution Procccdings and the responrlenLs I Lo -{ claim:u-r[s arc permittcd to wiLhdraw tl,rc balartcc amou1.rr. il any deposited by the Insurance Compan1.. 22. In the result, thc Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allo,,r,ed exonerating the Insurance Company from its liabilitv, as the respondent No.S O.P.l had committed brcach ol the tcrms and conditions o[ thc insurance policy. Horr,ever, us the entire amount was dcposited b1 thc Ir.rsurant.c Company at the timc ol prelcrring thc appcal. tl.rc rcspondents I to 4 claiman[s are pcrmitted to $,ithdrarr, thc balance amount, if any and thc appellant - Insurance Compary is permitted to recover the same from respondent No.5 - O.P. 1 owncr of the vehicle in Exccution Proceedings."

19. lt is trite to take note of the Hon,ble Apex Court,s judgment dealing with the schemc o[ the Workmcn,s Compensation Act in Golla Rajanna and Others v. Divisional -_t 9 Manager and Another a , rvherein the Apex C:c urt held as follorn's '1O. Undcr rlrr: schenre of the Act, the Workmen's Comlre rsarion Commrssronr:r is the last aurhority oD facts. The Parliarn rnt has thougltt Lt 1rl lo rirstnct Lhc scope oI the appeal 0rrly tc substnn(r.11 (lLr( strors of l:r,,r,. being a u'elfare Ie3i;iatron. Un[b.iun;LIr]1,.. rlrc llLglr Cour t lras mrssed this crucial q resrror ol lrmrtecl ]rr.rsclrction and has ventured to rc-apprcriltc th€ er'rclence :rrrrl r ccor clccl rts o\\ n flndings on percen age ol_ rlisabrlitr lor ulrrctr .1lso tirerc is no ltasis. Thc wholc r xcr,:Lse marle br thc Il)gh Cloull is nof $ithin the competelce of trLc High CouI.t un(ler Section 30 o[ thc Act."

20. [n vieu, of the judgmerrt of Hon'ble Apex C<-urt in Go1la Rajanna's CASE (4 supra), tl-ris Court is not incli -Led to delve into the facts of the case 21 . 'l'hc s:ricl prinr:ipLc enLrnciated in Golla Rajanna's CASC (4 supra) has been reiterated by the Hon'b1e Ape;r Court in the judgment of Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav and an,)1:her v, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another s . In .,1 e fac ts and circumstances of [he case, no question of lau-, ]nuch less a substantial one. arises ft;r consideration '1zorz1 r scc +s 'ZOZ: SCC Onhne SC I l05 10 i

22. Insurance company is at liberty to recover the amou,ts au'arded as compensation from thc or.r.ncr of thc vehicre in Exr:cu tion Proceedings For reasons aforesaid, Civii Miscellaneous Appeal sLands disposed of. No order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if an1,, shall stand closcd SD/ T. KRISHNA KUMAR JOINT REGIS -a //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, .1 . The Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Sangareddy, Medak District. (with records' if any)

2. One CC to Mr. V. Samba Siva Rao, Standing Counsel [OPUC] 3, One CC to Mr. S. Sudarshan Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Mr. K. Jamali, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Kam/gh s}, HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 1 E 0[t ;'C r5 -il .\: \: .,. 7 JUDGMENT GMA.No.126 of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE CMA 1k J (