P a g e | 1 Date of reserved for orders : 11.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 19.08.2026 Date of uploading : 25.08.2026 APHC010083942022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE 19th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 67 OF 2022 Between: 1. M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited,, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Hospital Road, Ananthapuram -515 001. ...Petitioner AND 1. Smt S Reshma, W/o. Ayub Khan, Muslim, Aged about 23 years, D.No.4-7- 48, Hasnabad, Hindupur Taluk, Ananthapur District, A.P. 2. S Hajira, D/o. Late Ayub Khan, Minor, Rep. by her mother Reshma, D.No. 4-7-48, Hasnabad, Hindupur Taluk, Ananthapur District, A.P. 3. Sri Trilokchand Chopda Jain, S/o. Hiralal Chopda, Business, G-15, Nakoda, Bhaoravnagar,Pachpedinaka, Raipur District, Chattisgarh - 492 001. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: K SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondents: SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY P a g e | 2 Counsel for the Respondents: P a g e | 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 67 OF 2022 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance company, aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2021 passed in E.C.No.22 of 2012 by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dharmavaram, whereby compensation of Rs.5,29,342/- was awarded in favour respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein/ claimants. (For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation). 2. The brief facts of the case are that: Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein/applicants filed an application before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, stating that the 1st applicant is the wife of late Ayub Khan (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) and the 2nd applicant is the daughter of the deceased. It was stated that the 1st opposite party is the owner of the lorry bearing registration No.CG 04 JB 3669 and the 2nd opposite party is the insurer of the said lorry. On 22.02.2009, the deceased, while driving the lorry bearing registration No.CG 04 JB 3669 from Chevella towards Sarkarapalli, reached near Malla Reddy Petrol Pump, where a lorry bearing registration No. KA 01 B 9855, coming in the opposite direction at a high speed, dashed against the lorry driven by the deceased. As a result, the driver of the lorry - Ayub Khan died on the spot. In connection with the said accident, a case in Crime No.50 of 2009, under Sections 337 and 304-A of the P a g e | 4 IPC, was registered by Chevella Police Station. Thereby, the applicants contended that the accident occurred while in the course of and arising out of the employment of the deceased as a driver. It was further stated that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family and that the applicants were wholly dependent upon his earnings and the monthly wages of the deceased was only Rs.8,000/- per month apart from batta of Rs.200/- per day and the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident. On these grounds, the applicants claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till date of realization. 3. Though notices were served on the opposite party No.1, he failed to enter appearance, as such, he was set ex parte on 01.09.2012. 4. Whereas, the 2nd respondent/ insurance company filed a counter stating that petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the applicants have to prove that the owner of the vehicle is having valid vehicle records, and the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.CG 04 JB 3669 was having valid driving license as on the date of accident. It also denied the existence of employer - employee relationship between the deceased and the 1st respondent and also disputed the quantum of compensation claimed by the applicants/ respondents 1 and 2 herein. 5. Learned Commissioner framed the following issues for determination: P a g e | 5 1. Whether the deceased was employee as per the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923? 2. Whether he met with the accident arising out of and in the Course of his employment resulting in to death? 3. Whether there is any violation of Policy Conditions to the extent the insurance company can be absolved from paying the compensation under E.C Act-1923? 4. Whether the deceased driver had valid driving license to drive the vehicle? If no, whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation? 5. If so, what is the wage and age of the deceased employee? 6. What is the amount of compensation payable? 7. Who are liable to pay compensation? 6. During the course of enquiry, AW.1 and AW.2 were examined on behalf of the applicants, and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on their behalf. On behalf of the opposite parties, RW.1 and RW.2 were examined and Exs.B1 and X1 were marked on their behalf. 7. Learned Commissioner, upon consideration of the pleadings and the evidence available on record, held that the deceased - Ayub Khan, was working as a driver under opposite party No.1 and he died in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Accordingly, learned Commissioner answered Issues Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the claimants. 8. With regard to Issue No.3, the learned Commissioner specifically held that the Insurance Company failed to establish that there was any major violation of the policy conditions so as to absolve the Insurance Company P a g e | 6 from its liability. Further, with regard to Issue No.4, the learned Commissioner held that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the deceased was not having a driving licence, and further held that even if the deceased driver had no driving licence, he is eligible to get compensation from the Insurance Company. Accordingly, the learned Commissioner answered Issue Nos.3 and 4 in favour of the claimants. Ultimately, learned Commissioner held that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to deposit an amount of Rs.5,29,342/- as compensation, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 22.11.2011, till the date of realisation, besides stamp duty of Rs.1,059/-. 9. Aggrieved by that, the appellant - insurance company filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 10. The grounds raised by the appellant in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are that:  The Commissioner erred in allowing E.C.No.22 of 2012 filed by the claimants by awarding a sum of Rs.5,29,342/- from the date of the application, without establishing that the deceased driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident.  As per Ex.A4, the claimants themselves stated that the lorry bearing registration No. KA 01 B 9855, coming from the opposite direction, dashed against the lorry bearing registration No.CG 04 JB 3669 in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, without impleading the owner P a g e | 7 and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No. KA 01 B 9855, no liability could have been fastened upon the appellant-Insurance Company. Apart from that, the memorandum of grounds also indicates certain substantial questions of law which reads as under:  Under Section 149(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the obligation to verify the driving licence is upon the employer/1st opposite party/3rd respondent herein. In the present case, the 1st opposite party/3rd respondent failed to verify the driving licence and did not produce the same despite notice being issued to the claimants and the owner of the vehicle.  The owner of the vehicle - employer was guilty of willful breach of conditions of insurance policy or the contract of insurance.  In view of the averments contained in Ex.A4, the liability, if any, ought to have been fastened upon the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.KA 01 B 9855  In the absence of any issue having been framed with regard to rash and negligent driving and contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA 01 B 9855, and in the absence of the owner and insurer of the said lorry being impleaded as parties before the Commissioner, the Commissioner ought not to have P a g e | 8 entertained the application and fastened liability upon the appellant- Insurance Company. 11. Though notices were served on the respondents, none entered appearance. 12. Heard Sri K.Kanakaraju, learned counsel representing Sri K.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the appellant. 13. Though several grounds have been raised by the appellant in this appeal, as stated above, the only ground urged before this Court is applicants failed to prove that the driver of the vehicle is holding valid driving licence as on the date of accident. 14. Though the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the submissions made before the learned Commissioner, he has not produced any material to rebut the findings recorded therein or to show that such findings are perverse. The core submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased did not have a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of the accident. In support of the said contention, he placed reliance on the evidence of RW.2, who is the Senior Assistant in the office of the RTO, Hindupur, wherein he stated that their office had verified the records of the RTO, Hindupur, and there was no mention of the driving licence of the deceased in the records of the RTO, Hindupur. However, in the cross- examination, RW.2 stated that he could depose only on the basis of the P a g e | 9 records available in their office in the Hindupur region, and it was not their case that the deceased did not have a driving licence at any place other than the Hindupur region. Further, contended that a letter has been addressed to the claimants for production of driving license of the deceased driver but they failed to produce the same. It cannot be expected that the driving license will be in possession of the family members of the deceased driver and the appellant has not taken any steps to examine the owner of the vehicle to establish that the deceased does not possess any valid driving licence. Even in the FIR it was not the contention that the deceased has no valid driving licence. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the letter addressed to the learned counsel for the claimants on 03.05.2019, calling upon them to produce the driving licence of the deceased. However, mere issuance of such a letter would not absolve the Insurance Company of its duty to place the necessary material on record to establish the absence of a valid driving licence. In such circumstances, the contention of the appellant- Insurance Company cannot be accepted to conclude that the deceased was not holding a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. In absence of any such plea, evidence and finding, this court cannot dwell upon those facts unless the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner are found to be perverse. The Commissioner had elaborately considered the evidence on record and also considered the case law on the aspects raised by the appellant herein and recorded specific findings. P a g e | 10 16. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal. 17. Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 19.08.2026 Dvs P a g e | 11 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 67 OF 2022 Date: 19.08.2026 Dvs