Smt. Hema Arya Others v. Pramod Chandra Pandey Another

E.C.A. No. 33 of 2022 “Smt. Hema Arya & Others vs. Pramod Chandra Pandey & Another”. By the impugned award, compensation of ₹9,95,990/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till actual payment has been awarded in favour of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 (widow and minor children of deceased Lalit Mohan Arya) against appellant/Insurance Company. 1

2. The case of the claimants before the learned Commissioner was that deceased Lalit Mohan Arya, aged 39 years, was employed as a driver with respondent no. 4, the owner of vehicle No. UK-04-TA-0051. He was drawing a salary of ₹20,000/- per month apart from food and other allowances, and was also earning from property transactions. On 28.05.2022, while driving the said vehicle from Nainital to Bhawali, a baby leopard suddenly crossed the road near Jokhiya. In an attempt to save the animal, the vehicle lost balance and met with an accident, resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased. The employer (respondent no. 4) admitted ownership of the vehicle, the employment of the deceased as a salaried driver, and the existence of a valid insurance policy with the appellant Company. The appellant/Insurance Company, however, denied the claim and raised objections, inter alia, that the deceased was not proved to be employed by respondent no. 4, and more importantly, that the driving licence of the deceased did not contain the mandatory “hill endorsement” as required under Rule 195 of the Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011, thereby rendering the licence invalid.

3. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether the deceased driver Lalit Mohan Arya was a 2 “workman” within the meaning of the Act? (ii) Whether the accident dated 28.05.2022, arising out of and in the course of employment, resulted in the death of the deceased? (iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

4. On Issue No. 1, the Commissioner held that the deceased was employed as a driver by respondent no. 4, a skilled worker, and held a valid driving licence. The Insurance Company failed to prove otherwise. On Issue No. 2, the Commissioner recorded that the accident occurred in the course of employment and that the death was a direct result thereof. On Issue No. 3, since the vehicle was insured with the appellant, liability to pay compensation was fixed upon the Insurance Company. As regards the monthly income, the Commissioner observed that there was no reliable evidence to support the claim of ₹20,000/- salary. Therefore, in absence of proof, the notional income was determined on the basis of the minimum wages for drivers notified by the State Government at ₹10,658/- per month. The learned Commissioner after applying Section 4(1)(a) of the Act read with Schedule IV, for the deceased aged 39 years (relevant factor 186.90), the compensation was calculated as: (₹10,658 x50% = ₹5,329) × 186.90 = ₹9,95,990/-. Thus, an award of ₹9,95,990/- with 12% annual interest was passed. 3

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit the award was unsustainable as the deceased’s licence was invalid without “hill endorsement,” thereby constituting a fundamental breach of policy conditions. Reliance was placed upon Rule 195 of the Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that Rule 195 applies only to public service vehicles and goods vehicles and has no application to a light motor vehicle. He relied on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jagdish [(2008) 9 SCC 661], and of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kala Devi (A.O. No. 139 of 2005), to contend that absence of a hill endorsement does not invalidate a licence to drive a light motor vehicle.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. The objection raised by the appellant regarding the hill endorsement is misconceived. Rule 195 of the Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011, by its plain language, applies only to public service vehicles and goods vehicles on hill roads. The vehicle in question was a light motor vehicle, which, under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, includes transport vehicles 4 with gross vehicle weight not exceeding 7500 kgs. The deceased possessed a valid LMV (Transport) licence. Therefore, the licence cannot be treated invalid merely because it lacked a hill endorsement.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jagdish (supra) has categorically held that insurers cannot repudiate liability on hyper- technical grounds when the driver possessed a valid licence to drive the class of vehicle involved in the accident. Similarly, in Kala Devi (supra), this Court has held that absence of a hill endorsement does not affect the validity of the licence for driving LMVs.

10. On facts, the relationship of employer and employee, the accident in the course of employment, and subsistence of the insurance policy stand established. The Commissioner rightly relied on minimum wages in the absence of salary proof and applied the correct factor from Schedule IV.

11. In view of the above, the impugned award well-reasoned and justified. There is no scope interference. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

12. No order as to costs. Mam t a ( A LOK M A H RA , J.) 1 8 .0 9 .2 0 2 5 5