Case at a Glance
A tractor driver died in March 2019 when the tractor moved while he was changing a cultivator set. The Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation awarded his family ₹7,68,702 with 12% interest against the owner and the insurer. The insurer appealed, saying he was not an employee and had no driving licence. Justice Renuka Yara held that the insurer failed to prove its own document showing a sale of the tractor, and that “Mere failure to produce the driving license was not equated with non-possession of driving license.” The appeal was dismissed.
G. Veera Reddy worked, according to his family, as the driver of a tractor owned by respondent No. 6. On 8 March 2019, while he was changing a cultivator set using the hydraulic lift, the tractor moved and he fell from its back side, suffering chest and other injuries. He died near Gopalaraopet village while being taken to hospital. His widow, Smt. G. Vani, and four other family members claimed ₹15,00,000 before the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, Hyderabad in E.C. No. 33 of 2019.
The owner did not appear and was set ex parte. On 9 November 2022 the Commissioner awarded ₹7,68,702 with 12% interest per annum from 9 April 2019, holding the owner and insurer jointly and severally liable. The insurer appealed, arguing that the tractor had been sold to the deceased six months earlier (relying on a statement, Ex. B2, recorded by its investigator), that no licence was found in police or transport records, and that it had collected no premium for driver risk. It relied on Beli Ram v. Rajendra Kumar; the claimants relied on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Khaleel Khan.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can an insurer escape liability under the Employees’ Compensation Act because the deceased driver’s licence was not produced and transport records showed none?
An Unproved Statement and a Missing Licence Are Not Enough
On the employment question, the Court relied on the police records and the widow’s testimony. The insurer’s key document, Ex. B2, was a statement attributed to the owner, but the insurer never examined the owner to prove it: “In the absence of such a course, the contents of Ex.B2 are not proved.” The Commissioner’s finding that the deceased was a workman employed as driver was therefore upheld.
On the licence, the widow had testified that her husband had a licence which was lost in the accident, and the insurer did not cross-examine on the point. The Court held that “Mere failure to produce the driving license was not equated with non-possession of driving license”, and that non-production before the police or the RTA does not in itself prove the absence of a licence. A letter from the District Transport Officer, Khammam showing no record did not settle the matter, because “non-registration of driving license in one jurisdiction does not mean that the deceased did not possess driving license”. The Court found the evidence sufficient to infer that the licence was simply not available, and declined to disturb the insurer’s liability.
What the Court Actually Held
- A statement relied on by the insurer is not proved unless the person who made it is examined; Ex. B2 therefore could not show that the tractor had been sold to the deceased.
- The deceased was a workman employed as driver, as found by the Commissioner on police records and the widow’s evidence.
- Non-production of a driving licence, or its absence from one transport office’s records, does not by itself prove that the driver had no licence.
- The appeal was dismissed and the award of ₹7,68,702 with 12% interest from 9 April 2019 was confirmed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Families of drivers often cannot produce a licence lost in an accident; this ruling protects their claims.
- It places the burden squarely on insurers to prove a licence breach with proper evidence.
- It reminds insurers that an investigator’s statement must be proved through its maker.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants
- State clearly in evidence that the licence existed and was lost, if that is the case.
- Police records of the accident and family testimony can establish employment.
- An adverse transport-office letter from one district is not conclusive.
For Counsel
- Insurers must examine the owner or the maker of a statement if they rely on it.
- Cross-examine on the licence issue; leaving the claimant’s testimony unchallenged weakens the defence.
- Search transport records beyond a single jurisdiction before alleging no licence.
Key Takeaways
- Failure to produce a licence is not proof of having none.
- One RTA’s lack of record does not decide the licence question.
- Unproved investigator statements carry no weight.
- ₹7,68,702 with 12% interest was upheld against the insurer.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is this a motor accident (MACT) case?
No. The claim was under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, because the deceased died while working as a tractor driver for the owner.
Who has to prove that the driver had no licence?
The judgment places the burden on the insurer. Here it relied only on non-production and a single transport office letter, which was not enough.
What interest was awarded?
12% per annum from 9 April 2019 until realisation, as ordered by the Commissioner and confirmed by the High Court.
Conclusion
The Telangana High Court refused to let an insurer defeat a working driver’s family on the strength of a missing document and an unproved statement. The burden of proving a licence breach lies on the insurer, and it was not discharged.
Practical takeaway: In employees’ compensation and accident claims, insurers alleging no licence must prove it with proper evidence; claimants should testify clearly if the licence was lost.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com