Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for & Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr.

Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. Ms. Babita Jalal, Advocate respondent no.4.

This Appeal from Order has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company assailing the judgment and award dated 27.07.2022, passed by the Compensation learned Commissioner/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, in E.C.A. No.11 of 2019, whereby the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation to the tune of ₹8,59,280/- in favour of the claimants. Employees’ no.4

The principal ground urged by the appellant is that the deceased workman, who was employed as a driver with respondent (employer/vehicle owner), was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. It is contended that the driving licence of the deceased stood suspended 29.09.2018 Regional Transport Officer, Rishikesh, and the fatal accident occurred on 31.10.2018, during the subsistence of the said suspension. According to the appellant, this amounted to a breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy, absolving the insurer of the Employees’ liability under Compensation Act, 1923. to 28.12.2018 by period Learned counsel for the appellant 4. contends that the absence of a valid driving licence constitutes a breach of policy conditions, absolving it of liability under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. Reliance statement of D.W.-1, indicating that suspension notice was dispatched via post and recorded in the department's dispatch register. is placed on Per contra, learned counsel

respondent no.4 submits that neither the owner nor the deceased had actual knowledge of the suspension. D.W-1’s corroborates statement relied upon by awareness, as Commissioner The Commissioner. evidence correctly demonstrates notice of suspension to the employer or deceased. It is further submitted that the burden to prove conscious breach of policy conditions lies squarely upon the insurer, which burden has not been discharged in the present case. regarding information

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the learned Employees’ Compensation Commissioner has rightly relied upon the statement of P.W.-2 and recorded a categorical finding that no suspension of the driving licence of the deceased was available either with respondent no.4 (the employer) or with the deceased himself. Admittedly, no documentary evidence produced by the Insurance Company to establish service of the suspension order or notice upon the employer or the deceased. departmental dispatch register Mere assertion of dispatch does not constitute proof of service or knowledge insufficient.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu & others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & another, reported (2018) 3 SCC 208, wherein it has been held that the burden of proof lies on the insurer to establish conscious breach, and mere production of licensing authority records without insufficient. knowledge

Applying the aforesaid settled legal position to the facts of the present case, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in the impugned award. The appellant– Insurance Company has establish that respondent no.4 or the deceased had any knowledge of the suspension of the driving licence or that the employer willfully permitted the deceased to drive the vehicle despite such knowledge. failed

Accordingly, this Court holds that the Insurance Company has failed to discharge its statutory burden, and the Compensation learned fastened Commissioner has liability upon the insurer. Employees’ rightly from Order, being 10. The Appeal devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.)

03.01.2026 Arpan