Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri Gurmail Singh @ Gurmer @ Gurnal Singh and Anr.

1. This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the insurance company impugning the judgment of the Commissioner dated 14.5.2012 by which compensation has been awarded to the respondent no.1 herein.

2. The appellant/insurance company argues before this Court the aspect that the insurance company could not be liable in the absence of the respondent no.1/driver not having filed and proved his driving licence, and which defence was specifically taken by the insurance company in para 6 of the 2014:DHC:2566 reply on merits of its written statement. The appellant/insurance company also accordingly filed the affidavit by way of evidence of its Assistant Manager (Legal) Sh. Ashutosh Singh reiterating the aspects as stated in para 6 of the written statement, in para 4 of the affidavit by way of evidence.

3. I have seen the record of the Commissioner. It could not be disputed on behalf of the respondent no.1 that no driving licence of the respondent no.1 was filed before the Commissioner. Once no driving licence is filed, it shows that the respondent no.1 was driving the vehicle without having a valid driving licence. Once the respondent no.1 did not have a valid driving licence and the employer allowed the respondent no.1 to drive the vehicle without a valid driving licence, the appellant/insurance company cannot be held liable because as per the term of the insurance policy, the driver must have a valid driving licence. A reference to the judgment of the Commissioner shows that the Commissioner has not at all discussed this aspect though this defence was specifically raised in the written statement and proved through the affidavit by way of evidence filed on behalf of the appellant/insurance company. On account of this fact, there is grave perversity in the judgment of the Commissioner and therefore a substantial question of law arises under Section 30 of the Act.

4. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of the Commissioner dated 14.5.2012 is set aside as against the appellant/insurance company. The claim petition filed by the respondent no.1 before the Commissioner will stand dismissed as against the appellant. Since the respondent no.1 has received 50% of the amount of compensation, the appellant will be at liberty to recover this amount from the respondent no.1. The balance 50% amount which is lying with the Commissioner be returned back to the appellant alongwith accrued interest thereon within four weeks of the production of copy of the present judgment before the Commissioner. Parties are left to bear their own costs. MAY 15, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne