Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2264 (HP)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Puran Dei

2016-10-25

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal arises from the impugned order of the learned Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. ( for short the 'Commissioner’), whereby he allowed the application preferred thereat by the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 wherein they claimed grant of compensation vis-a-vis them under the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short the 'Act’). 2. The claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 herein are successors-in-interest of deceased Chaterpal, whose demise occurred in an ill-fated accident involving truck bearing No. HP-24-5291, whereon he stood at the relevant time engaged as a cleaner by respondents No.3 and 4. They had instituted a petition before the Commissioner staking a claim therein for assessment of compensation under the Act qua them. The learned Commissioner on standing seized with the relevant evidence, pronounced an award wherein he assessed compensation in a sum of Rs.6,71,389/- along with interest @ 12% per annum vis-a-vis the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 herein besides liability thereof stood fastened upon the insurance company. 141 3. The Insurance company-appellant herein standing aggrieved by the rendition of the learned Commissioner hence concerts to assail it by preferring an appeal therefrom before this Court. 4. The learned Commissioner had while concluding qua the deceased drawing wages in a sum quantified @ Rs.3000/- per month had depended upon the testimony of PW-1 Puran Dei, the mother of deceased Chaterpal. She had therein pronounced qua the deceased drawing from his employment under his employer wages @ Rs.3000/- per month besides his employer defraying to him diet money quantified at Rs.50 per day. Though, the aforesaid articulations made by PW-1 in her testification qua hence deceased Chaterpal, the predecessorin- interest of the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 herein cumulatively drawing wages @ Rs.4500/- per month, yet the learned Commissioner concluded of the amount of wages per month drawn by the deceased from his employment as a cleaner in the truck owned by respondents No.3 and 4 standing comprised in a sum of Rs.3000/- whereon he applied the relevant statutory principles for determination of compensation vis-a-vis the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 herein. Since, the learned Commissioner has taken only a sum of Rs.3000/- to be the per mensem wages drawn by the deceased from his employment as a cleaner under his employers, the aforesaid sum is visibly a just and reasonable sum of wages per mensem drawn by the deceased while his standing engaged as a cleaner in the ill-fated vehicle by his employers. In aftermath the aforesaid computation of wages per mensem drawn by the deceased while his standing engaged as cleaner in the ill fated vehicle by his employers does not warrant any interference. Even otherwise the Insurance company has not adduced the relevant best evidence comprised in its concerting to lead into the witness box the employers of the deceased wherefrom the apposite elicitations may have upsurged qua the deceased drawing wages per mensem in a figure lesser than Rs.3000/-. Consequently, reiteratedly, the conclusion drawn by the learned Commissioner qua the deceased drawing wages constituted in a sum of Rs.3000/- per mensem while his serving in the ill-fated vehicle as a cleaner under his employer warrants deference. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has contended of with the driving licence held by the driver, who at the relevant time was driving the ill-fated vehicle, licence whereof stands comprised in Ex. RW1/A holding reflections therewithin qua it authorizing him to drive a heavy transport vehicle, validity whereof enduring upto 30.12.2006. whereas with the ill-fated occurrence taking place on 17.01.2007, qua hence thereat the driving licence held by the driver of the ill-fated vehicle not holding any valid subsisting force, whereafter, he contends qua the fastening of the relevant liability upon it by the learned Commissioner in the impugned rendition warranting interference. However, the aforesaid contention also warrants its standing discountenanced in the face of the provisions encapsulated in Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the relevant provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, mandating qua on an application standing preferred by a holder of a driving licence before the licencing authority concerned whereupon he on its validity expiring seeks its renewal therefrom, it holding an empowerment to renew it, renewal whereof holding validity besides effect from the date of its expiry. However, the aforesaid mandate held therewithin is subject to the mandate held in its proviso. The relevant provisions of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act read as under:- “ 14. However, the aforesaid mandate held therewithin is subject to the mandate held in its proviso. The relevant provisions of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act read as under:- “ 14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles:- (1)....................................... (2). A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act Shall,- (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years” The relevant provisions of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act read as under:_ “15. Renewal of driving licences.- (a) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry: Provided that in any case where the application of the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal: Provided further that where the application is for the renewal of a licence to drive a transport vehicle or where in any other case the applicant has attained the age of forty years, the same shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8 and the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 8 shall, so far as may be apply in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learner's licence.” The proviso to Section 15 wherewithin a mandate is held qua on more than 30 days elapsing since its expiry whereupon its renewal stands concerted by its holder, the renewal of his driving licence by the licencing authority concerned holding effect from the date of its renewal and not from the date of its expiry wherefrom the inevitable conclusion is of unless the holder of a driving licence within 30 days elapsing since its expiry prefers an application before the licencing authority concerned wherein he asks for its renewal therefrom, the renewal of the relevant driving licence by the licencing authority concerned being construable to hold effect from the date of its renewal. In other words, if only when the holder of a driving licence on expiry of his driving licence prefers an application within 30 days elapsing since its expiry concerting therein its renewal by the licencing authority concerned thereupon alone its renewal by the licencing authority concerned relating back to the date of its expiry otherwise not. Consequently, with reflections occurring in Ex.RW1/A qua the driving licence of the driver of ill-fated vehicle surviving upto 30.12.2006 whereas the vehicle which he was driving at the relevant time suffering an accident on 17.01.2007 hence with the ill-fated occurrence taking place with less than 30 days elapsing vis-a-vis the date of expiry of the apposite driving licence also when thereupto not more than 30 days elapsed therefrom, it cannot be concluded of hence (a) the relevant driver not preferring within 30 days since its expiry an apposite application before the licencing authority concerned for obtaining its renewal therefrom (b) of qua it holding force and validity at the time of the ill-fated occurrence significantly when its renewal stood concerted within 30 days elapsing since its expiry (c) besides its renewal relating back to the date of its expiry. Consequently, when only on 30 days elapsing since 30.12.2006 besides therewithin his omitting to seek its renewal from the licencing authority concerned, a conclusion was garnerable of hence renewal of his driving licence by the licencing authority concerned being effective from the date of its renewal. Contrarily, reiteratedly when RW-1 in his testification has not made any communication qua the driver of the ill-fated vehicle seeking renewal of his driving licence from the licencing authority concerned on more than 30 days elapsing since 30.12.2006, it has to be concluded qua hence his seeking renewal of the apposite driving licence within 30 days from the date of its expiry also therefrom it has to be concomitantly concluded qua his driving licence being construable to be effective vis-a-vis the date of its expiry i.e. 30.12.2006. In sequel, whereof it is to be concomitantly concluded qua at the time contemporaneous to the occurrence of the ill-fated incident, his holding a valid driving licence to drive the relevant vehicle. In aftermath, the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner on the aforesaid apt issue do not merit any interference. 6. In sequel, whereof it is to be concomitantly concluded qua at the time contemporaneous to the occurrence of the ill-fated incident, his holding a valid driving licence to drive the relevant vehicle. In aftermath, the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner on the aforesaid apt issue do not merit any interference. 6. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, no substantial question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant appeal. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the order impugned hereat is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.