Judgment This appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited assailing the order dated 09.03.2007 in W.C.No.29 of 2006 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-1, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Commissioner’) whereby and whereunder the applicant -claimant was awarded an amount of Rs.3,08,158/-as compensation as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-. 2. The parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the W.C. 3. The brief facts of the case of the applicant are that he was working as driver of auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 16 W 9886 belonging to opposite Party No.1 and he was paid monthly salary @ Rs.4,500/-besides batta @ Rs.50/-per day. On 09.12.2005, the applicant was proceeding in the said auto rickshaw from Madhuranagar towards Railway Station and at about 7.30 p.m., when he reached near Railway Gate, a lorry was coming at high speed driven in a rash and negligent manner and on spotting the same and in order to avoid the accident, he applied sudden brakes and as a result thereof, the auto rickshaw turned turtle and in the process, he suffered injuries. P.S. Satyanarayanapuram registered a case in Crime No.77 of 2006 under Section 337 of IPC. The applicant was aged about 48 years at the time of accident. He was treated at different hospitals for which he incurred heavy expenses. 4. Opposite party No.1 is set ex parte. Opposite party No.2 -insurance company filed counter denying the employment of the applicant as driver on the auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 16W 9886 with opposite party No.1, the narration and occurrence of the accident, sustaining injuries during the course of employment, treatment taken by the applicant in various hospitals, the applicant has become unfit for the post of driver, the age and wages of the applicant as claimed by him in the application, the registration of a case by P.S. Satyanarayanapuram in Crime No.77 of 2006, the applicant was a workman within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,1923 (for short ‘the Act’), the applicant was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, the vehicle was having a valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident and the Commissioner has jurisdiction to hear and decide the application. Opposite Party No.2 is not liable to pay compensation, even if it is proved that the vehicle was insured with it as there was no contract between the applicant and opposite party No.2 and that the policy does not cover the risk of the applicant. Though opposite party No.1 was having knowledge of the accident, he did not report the same to the concerned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and did not deposit the compensation which is mandatory requirement under the Act, and as such, opposite party No.1 alone is liable to pay compensation. It is stated that the Police did not inform opposite party No.2 or forward copies of documents regarding the accident. It is stated that opposite party No.2 issued insurance policy in respect of the auto rickshaw and the same was valid as on the date of the accident and as per the policy the driver of the vehicle should possess an effective and valid driving licence. It is also stated that they had appointed an investigator, who stated in his report that the applicant was authorised to drive LMV-transport and non-transport vehicle and the licence is valid up to 25.8.2006 and he was not authorised to drive auto rickshaw. It is further stated that as per the FIR, the applicant was the complainant and he owned the auto rickshaw bearing No. AP16W 9886 and met with the accident as the auto rickshaw over turned and caused injuries to the applicant, and as such, there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties. 5. The applicant himself got examined as AW.1 besides examining medical witness as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A.9. On behalf of the insurance company, its administrative officer was examined as RW.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. 6. Taking into consideration, the oral and the documentary evidence on record and submissions made on either side, the Commissioner awarded Rs.3,08,158/-though the applicant has claimed Rs.5,00,000/-towards compensation. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner in awarding the said compensation of Rs.3,08,158/-, the insurance company filed this appeal. 7. Heard the learned standing counsel for opposite party No.2 (insurance company) and the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner in awarding the said compensation of Rs.3,08,158/-, the insurance company filed this appeal. 7. Heard the learned standing counsel for opposite party No.2 (insurance company) and the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. It is contended on behalf of opposite party No.2 (insurance company) that the applicant was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and the same amounted to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and in support of the contention it relied on decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol ( 2009 ACJ 1411 ), Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yenni Surya Rao (2012 ACJ 791), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai ( 2006 ACJ 1336 ) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir ( 2008 ACJ 2161 ). As per Exs.A.1 -FIR, the applicant was the owner of the auto rickshaw as such the question of employee and employer relationship does not exist; that the disability and loss of earning capacity fixed at 80% and 100% respectively by the medical witness is on higher side and that the Commissioner erred in awarding excess compensation It is contended that since the applicant is the owner of the auto rickshaw, he does not come within the purview of the relationship of the employee and the employer. The applicant though was holding a valid light motor vehicle driving licence, he failed to obtain endorsement from the RTA authorities to drive a light motor vehicle carrying passengers. It is also contended that since the applicant had suffered only crush injuries to left hand, fixing physical disability at 80% and loss of earning capacity at 100% is unwarranted and in support of the contention it relied on the decisions in Pal Raj v. Divisional Controller, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (2010 ACJ 2859), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed ( 2007 ACJ 845 ), and oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir ( 2009 ACJ 2742 ). Further, it is contended that 80% physical disability will not come in the way of his driving any motor vehicle. 9. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed ( 2007 ACJ 845 ), and oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir ( 2009 ACJ 2742 ). Further, it is contended that 80% physical disability will not come in the way of his driving any motor vehicle. 9. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the applicant that while preferring a police complaint soon after the accident, the applicant informed the police that at the time of the accident he was proceeding with his vehicle. He means to say that he was driving the said vehicle. What he wanted to convey was that he was proceeding with his vehicle which is owned by opposite party No.1. However, while recording the said complaint, the Police by mistake due to misunderstanding stated in Ex.A.1 -FIR that the applicant was driving his own vehicle at the time of accident. Taking advantage of the same, it is contended on behalf of the insurance company that since the applicant was driving his own vehicle at the time of accident, he cannot be said to be the employee of opposite party No.1, and as such, there exists no relationship of employee and the employer and the applicant is not covered under the policy. However, a perusal of the evidence of RW.1, who was examined on behalf of the insurance company, discloses in unequivocal terms that the auto rickshaw belonged to opposite party No.1 and Ex.B.1 insurance policy was issued in respect of the said vehicle and that the driver of the auto rickshaw covered under Ex.B.2-insurance policy. It is evident from the record that no document was filed on behalf of the insurance company except marking Ex.B.1 insurance policy, Ex.B.2 -extract of driving licence and Ex.B.3 -authorisation letter. Exs.B.1 and B.2 would go to show that that policy was issued in respect of the said vehicle and the applicant was holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It is also contended that one of the employees of the insurance company by name Yesupadam was appointed as investigator and he is stated to have investigated and submitted his report along with some documents collected by him, however, the said report was not brought before the Commissioner. It is also contended that one of the employees of the insurance company by name Yesupadam was appointed as investigator and he is stated to have investigated and submitted his report along with some documents collected by him, however, the said report was not brought before the Commissioner. It is also contended that FIR is not a conclusive proof of any fact, and as such, the contention raised on behalf of the insurance company that as per the said FIR, the applicant was driving the auto rickshaw in the capacity of owner at the time of the accident is not tenable. So far as the percentage of disability suffered by the applicant is concerned, it is in the evidence of AW.2 -medical witness that the applicant had suffered 80% disability arising out of fracture of left shaft femur and he had suffered 100% loss of earning capacity and the same was observed by the Commissioner during the course of trial. The Commissioner relying on the evidence of the medical witness observed that the applicant cannot drive any vehicle since his left hand became dysfunctional. It is also contended that it is an admitted fact that the applicant was having a valid light motor driving licence at the relevant time. Since he was driving the transport light motor vehicle, he was not required to secure the endorsement to that effect on his licence from the RTA authorities as it is optional and not mandatory. Relying on the decision in Ajit Kumar Jha v. Md. Raju (2010 (2) An. W.R. 365 (DB) (Jhar.), it is contended that an auto rickshaw is a light motor vehicle and its driver had a valid light motor vehicle driving licence and the insurance company cannot disown its liability. Therefore, it is contended that valid light motor driving licence is sufficient and the driver of an auto rickshaw need not resort to other processes like securing endorsement etc. to drive a transport light motor vehicle. Relying on the decision in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Secunderabad v. K. Devi and others ( 2011 (5) ALD 485 ),it is contended that even if on the date of accident the driver is not in possession of valid driving licence, which is expired, and the same is renewed three days after the accident, the insurance company cannot avoid its liability. Ltd. Secunderabad v. K. Devi and others ( 2011 (5) ALD 485 ),it is contended that even if on the date of accident the driver is not in possession of valid driving licence, which is expired, and the same is renewed three days after the accident, the insurance company cannot avoid its liability. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner does not suffer from any error or irregularity. 10. It is seen that the applicant was having valid driving licence which authorised him to drive LMV-Transport vehicle and Non-Transport vehicle. As per Clause 47 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, “transport vehicle” means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or private service vehicle. In the instant case, the vehicle involved in the accident is auto rickshaw which is a light motor vehicle. Further, in Ex.B.1 -insurance policy, it is mentioned that “ Any person including the insured provided that the person driving holds an effective and valid driving licence to drive the category of vehicle insured hereunder, at the time of accident is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that a person holding an effective and valid learner’s license to drive the category of vehicle insured hereunder, may also drive the vehicle when not used for transport of passengers at the time accident.” It is pertinent to note that the accident occurred when the applicant alone was proceeding in the auto rickshaw towards Railway Station. In view of the same and as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Limited v. Swaran Singh and others (2004 ACJ 1),it cannot be said that the applicant was not holding valid driving licence at the time of the accident. So far as the relationship between the applicant and opposite party No.1, as employee and employer is concerned, it is the case of the insurance company that as per Ex.A-1, the applicant was driving his own auto rickshaw and as such there exists no relationship between the employee and the employer. However, it is the evidence of RW.1, who was examined on behalf of the insurance company, that as per the RTA records, opposite party No.1 is the owner of the auto rickshaw and the said auto is a transport vehicle and Ex.B.1 -insurance policy was issued in respect of the said vehicle. However, it is the evidence of RW.1, who was examined on behalf of the insurance company, that as per the RTA records, opposite party No.1 is the owner of the auto rickshaw and the said auto is a transport vehicle and Ex.B.1 -insurance policy was issued in respect of the said vehicle. So far as fixing the disability at 80% and the loss of earning at 100% are concerned, the evidence of AW.2 -medical witness is that after perusing the medical record and after examining the applicant clinically and radiologically, he found that the applicant was having old crush injury of left elbow. There is loss of bone, lower end of left hemerus, loss of left elbow joint present and the entire left upper limb below the elbow and elbow joint are functionless. The movements of left shoulder are severely restricted. He estimated the disability to his left upper limb at 80% and loss of earning capacity at 100% and issued Ex.A.8 -disability certificate. Further, the Commissioner physically observed the applicant during the course of trial. So far as the contention of the insurance company that 80% disability would not come in the way of his driving any motor vehicle is concerned, it is the evidence of AW.2 medical witness that the entire left upper limb below the elbow and elbow joint are functionless and the movements of left shoulder are severally restricted and that the injuries sustained by the applicant are more than amputation. This Court has gone through the decisions relied on behalf of the opposite Party No.2 (insurance company) and those decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the contentions raised on behalf of opposite party No.2 insurance company are unsustainable. 11. In view of the above reasons and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner does not suffer from any error or irregularity warranting interference from this Court, and as such, the C.M.A. is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.