Court No. - 3
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2191 of 2018 Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Respondent :- Tasleem Ahmad And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company.
The appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 against the award dated dated 28.2.2018 given by the Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, Moradabad Region, Moradabad. The Commissioner by the said award has allowed Rs.8,28,096/- as compensation with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident i.e. 12.2.2016 till its payment.
Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following two arguments. The first is that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid license on the date of accident. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable for payment of any compensation. The second submission is that the Commissioner has manifestly erred in taking the income of the deceased to be Rs.8000/- p.m. for the purposes of awarding compensation.
The issue of license has been dealt with by the Commissioner while deciding issue No.2. It has been recorded that the driver of the vehicle was having a licence of driving motor cycle and light motor vehicle which was valid from 11.9.2013 to 10.9.2016. The Road Transport Department has made an endorsement on Form - 54 that the register containing the entries of the licence was not traceable despite enough search and further that the aforesaid licence was not issued by the department.
Form - 54 issued by the Road Transport Department is a public document which does not require any proof. Nonetheless the endorsement made on the said form clearly indicates that the register containing the entries with regard to the licence is not traceable. If that be so, there appears to be no basis for the Road Transport Department to record that the said licence was not issued by the department. It means that the said endorsement that no such license was issued by the department was made without verifying the record.
Even then the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid endorsement has been given the right to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. Since right of recovery has been given to the appellant-insurance company, no prejudice has been caused to it.
In so far as the contention with regard to the income of the deceased is concerned, a finding has been returned that the minimum wages prescribed by the State Government for the skilled labourer is Rs.8,317/- per month but since the Commissioner has no power to determine the compensation by taking more than Rs.8000/- p.m. as income, the Commissioner has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- p.m. for the purposes of determining compensation.
In view of the above, as the minimum wages prescribed is more than Rs.8000/- p.m., the Commissioner has not erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- p.m.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that none of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant has any force and the appeal has no merit.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 Brijesh