Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Bhakti Ram And Another on 18 February, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:10951
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No.383 of 2012
18th February, 2026
Dev Bhoomi Construction Pvt. Ltd. .............Appellant
Versus
Bhakti Ram and another ...........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. R.P. Nauityal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Prashant Khanna, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
This Appeal from Order has been preferred
under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1923”),
assailing the judgment and award dated 18.06.2012
passed by the Workmen’s Compensation
Commissioner, Tehri Garhwal, New Tehri in Claim
Petition No.15 of 2009, whereby the claim petition
filed by respondent no.1 was allowed and
compensation of ₹5,46,560/- along with simple
interest at 10 per cent per annum, payable upon
failure to deposit the amount within thirty days, was
awarded against the present appellant-owner of the
vehicle. The appellant seeks setting aside of the
judgment on the grounds that the liability ought to
have been fastened upon the insurer and that various
findings of the learned Commissioner suffers from
errors of law and fact.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the
claimant, Bhakti Ram, filed a petition on 11.11.2009
1
2025:UHC:10951
asserting that his son, Manish Kumar, aged about 22
years, was employed as a driver of Vehicle No.UA-
07R-8179, owned by the present appellant and
insured with respondent no.2. It was submitted that
in the intervening night of 20/21 March 2009, at
about 01:30 A.M., the said vehicle met with an
accident near village Bhvint on the Rishikesh –
Srinagar motor road, causing the instantaneous
death of Manish Kumar. An accident report was
lodged at Police Station Devprayag, and post mortem
was conducted on 22.03.2009 at Government
Hospital, Narendranagar. The claimant pleaded that
the deceased worked as a driver earning ₹4,000/- per
month and additionally received ₹50/- per day as food
allowance, making his monthly income approximately
₹5,500/-. The claimant asserted that he was
dependent upon the income of the deceased and
sought compensation under the Act of 1923.
3. The claimant pleaded that his son Manish
Kumar was employed as a driver on vehicle no. UA-
07R-8179 owned by the present appellant. He
asserted that the deceased, aged about 22 years, was
earning ₹4,000/-, per month, along with ₹50/- per
day as food allowance, and contributed substantially
to the household income. It was further stated that
the deceased was healthy, fully capable of driving
heavy vehicles, and was the only earning member
upon whom the claimant-an elderly parent, was
entirely dependent. The claimant emphasised that the
accident occurred solely during the course of
2
2025:UHC:10951
employment and that required intimation was sent to
the employer, and that prior to filing the claim
petition, a legal notice was also issued seeking
compensation, to which no response was received.
4. The owner/appellant, in his written
statement, accepted that Manish Kumar was engaged
as a driver on his dumper and admitted that the
accident occurred during the course of employment.
He, however, asserted that the deceased was paid a
salary of ₹3,500/-, per month, and that all documents
of the vehicle were valid on the date of the accident.
He contended that since the vehicle was duly insured
with respondent no.2, the entire liability, if any,
should fall upon the insurer. The appellant also
emphasised that the deceased possessed a driving
licence, which the employer had verified at the time of
engagement. According to him, the learned
Commissioner erred in law in fastening liability upon
the employer despite existence of a valid policy and
despite absence of any pleading or proof by the
insurer that the employer was aware of or had
connived in any alleged irregularity in the licence.
5. The insurance company denied the claim
completely and asserted that the petition was not
maintainable in view of non-compliance of the
statutory requirements under Sections 10 and 22 of
the Act of 1923. It further contended that the
deceased did not possess a valid heavy vehicle driving
licence and that the route permit, fitness certificate
and pollution certificate of the vehicle were defective,
3
2025:UHC:10951
and that there were material breaches of policy
conditions absolving the insurer of liability. The
insurer argued that unless the claimant proved valid
licence, valid vehicle documents, and absence of
breach, the insurer could not be fastened with
liability under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, or under the terms of the workmen’s
compensation policy.
6. Based on the pleadings of the learned
Commissioner, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether Manish Kumar, son of the plaintiff was
employed as a driver on truck (dumper) number UA-07-R-
8179 of the opposite party no. 1, owner of the vehicle,
Devbhoomi Communication Pvt. Ltd., on 21-03-2009?
2. Whether the driver Manish Kumar died on the spot
during the course of his employment when the said vehicle
met with an accident near village Bhvint on Rishikesh-
Srinagar motor road on 21.03.2009 at 01:30 A.M.?
3. What was the age and salary of the deceased driver,
Manish Kumar, on the date of the accident?
4. Whether all vehicle documents (RC/permit, fitness/
insurance, etc.) were valid on the date of the accident, and
did the driver have a valid driving license?
5. Is the plaintiff entitled to any compensation from the
defendants, if yes, who is responsible for paying the
compensation?
On Issue No.1 the learned Commissioner relied upon
the unequivocal admission of the owner in his written
statement wherein he categorically stated that the
deceased was employed as a driver on vehicle no.
UA07R-8179. The learned Commissioner also noted
that the claimant’s testimony and documents such as
4
2025:UHC:10951
the accident report and notice to the employer
corroborated this fact. The insurer’s denial, being
merely for want of knowledge, did not rebut the
owner’s admission. Accordingly, the learned
Commissioner held that employment stood proved
and the issue was decided in favor of the claimant.
On Issue No.2 the learned Commissioner relied on
the accident report of Police Station Devprayag, the
Panchayatnama, and the post mortem report, all of
which confirmed that on the intervening night of
20/21 March 2009, the dumper fell into a gorge near
village Bhvint, resulting in the instantaneous death of
the driver Manish Kumar. The owner himself
admitted the occurrence of the accident in his reply.
The learned Commissioner thus held that the
accident arose out of and in the course of
employment and accordingly decided in claimant’s
favour.
On Issue No.3, the learned Commissioner considered
the family register and the school transfer certificate
which indicated the deceased’s age as approximately
20 years on the date of accident. Regarding income,
the learned Commissioner noted the claimant’s
assertion of ₹4,000/-, per month, plus allowance, and
the owner’s admission of ₹3,500/-, per month, but in
the absence of documentary proof and keeping in
view the statutory ceiling under Section 4 of the Act,
it fixed the notional monthly income at ₹4,000/-. The
learned Commissioner therefore held that the
deceased was 20 years old and earning ₹4,000/-, per
5
2025:UHC:10951
month.
On Issue No.4 was decided partly against the insurer
and partly against the owner. The learned
Commissioner accepted that the vehicle possessed
valid registration, fitness certificate, permit and
insurance on the date of accident, as supported by
official documents filed by the owner. Regarding
licence, the learned Commissioner noted that the
deceased held a valid LMV licence duly verified by the
Licensing Authority but did not possess a proved valid
HMV licence. The HMV licence filed by the owner was
found unverified, and the insurer’s investigator
reported it to be fake. The learned Commissioner held
that permitting a 20-year-old LMV-licence holder to
drive a heavy dumper constituted negligence
attributable to the employer. Since breach was
created by the employer, the insurer could not be
saddled with liability.
On Issue No.5, the learned Commissioner concluded
that the claimant was entitled to compensation as the
accident occurred during employment and due to no
fault of the deceased. The learned Commissioner held
that, because the deceased did not possess a valid
licence to drive the heavy vehicle, the liability could
not be shifted to the insurer. Applying the statutory
formula under Section 4 and Schedule IV for a
workman aged 20 earning ₹4,000/- per month, the
learned Commissioner assessed compensation at
₹4,48,000/- and added simple interest for 2 years and
9 months at eight per cent, totalling ₹5,46,560/-.
6
2025:UHC:10951
Liability was fixed solely upon the owner.
7. After hearing the parties concerned and
after perusal of the material available on record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the findings
returned by the learned Commissioner do not warrant
interference in an appeal under Section 30(1) of the
Act of 1923. The jurisdiction of this Court is confined
to examining substantial questions of law, and unless
the conclusions of the Commissioner are shown to be
perverse, unsupported by evidence, or in derogation
of settled legal principles, the appellate court cannot
reassess the factual matrix.
8. In the present case, the Commissioner has
recorded clear findings, supported by evidence and
reinforced by the admissions of the employer, that the
deceased Manish Kumar was employed as a driver on
the offending vehicle and that the accident occurred
squarely in the course of employment. The documents
on record, including the police accident report,
Panchayatnama, and post-mortem report, as well as
the employer’s own pleading, leave no room for doubt
on this aspect. These findings are purely factual and
have been arrived at upon proper appreciation of
evidence; they therefore do not give rise to any
question of law.
9. The primary challenge of the appellant
pertains to fastening liability upon the owner instead
of the insurer on the ground that the deceased did
not possess a valid HMV licence. The Commissioner
found, based on the materials produced, that
7
2025:UHC:10951
although the deceased held an LMV licence, the HMV
licence filed by the employer was unverified and was
reported to be fake by the insurer’s investigator. The
Commissioner further recorded that an LMV-licence
holder aged 20 years had been permitted by the
employer to drive a heavy dumper. This amounted to
a breach of policy conditions attributable to the
employer. The legal position applicable to this
situation stands crystallised by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh
reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297, held that an insurer, to
avoid liability, must prove not merely a breach but
that such breach was committed with the knowledge
and consent of the insured. The Supreme Court
emphasised that where the breach is directly
attributable to the insured, the insurer cannot be
compelled to indemnify. The Commissioner’s finding
that the employer permitted an unqualified person to
drive a heavy vehicle falls squarely within this
principle. While setting out the general principles
governing the insurer’s burden to establish a policy
breach attributable to the insured, the Hon’ble Court
held as under:
“49. Such a breach on the part of the insured must be
established by the insurer to show that not only the
insured used or caused or permitted to be used the
vehicle in breach of the Act but also that the damage he
suffered flowed from the breach.
51. It is trite that where the insurers, relying upon the
provisions of violation of law by the assured, take an
exception to pay the assured or a third party, they must
prove a wilful violation of the law by the assured. In some
cases violation of criminal law, particularly, violation of
the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act may result in
absolving the insurers but, the same may not necessarily
hold good in the case of a third party. In any event, the8
2025:UHC:10951
exception applies only to acts done intentionally or “so
recklessly as to denote that the assured did not care what
the consequences of his act might be”.
10. Similarly, in the case of Pappu & Ors. Vs.
Vinod Kumar Lamba reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that when a
driver does not hold the requisite licence for the class
of vehicle driven at the time of accident, and the
insured fails to establish that he had exercised due
care in verifying and ensuring the driver’s
competence, the insurer may be absolved. The ratio of
Pappu (supra) supports the conclusion that if the
insured/owner failed to verify the HMV licence or
permitted an LMV-licence holder to drive a heavy
vehicle, the liability cannot be shifted to the insurer.
The reasoning adopted by the Commissioner is
consistent with the ratio of these decisions. The
Hon’ble Court in the case of Pappu (supra) reiterated
the principle that, in cases where the insurer alleges
breach of licence conditions, the initial burden lies on
the owner to prove the foundational facts. The Hon’ble
Court held as under:
“12. This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. [National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297
has noticed the defences available to the insurance
company under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. The insurance company is entitled to take a
defence that the offending vehicle was driven by an
unauthorised person or the person driving the vehicle did
not have a valid driving licence. The onus would shift on
the insurance company only after the owner of the
offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within
his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was
authorised by him to drive the vehicle and was having a
valid driving licence at the relevant time.”
9
2025:UHC:10951
11. This Court finds no perversity in the learned
Commissioner’s conclusion that the insurer
successfully established breach of policy conditions
attributable to the employer. The question of whether
the licence was valid, whether the vehicle documents
were in order, and whether the employer permitted
the deceased to drive despite lacking the requisite
licence are all questions of fact. The Commissioner
has addressed each of these on the basis of evidence,
and none of these findings are shown to be
unsupported or illegal so as to warrant interference.
12. As regards the computation of
compensation, the Commissioner applied Section 4
and Schedule IV of the Act, fixed the monthly income
at ₹4,000/- keeping in view the statutory ceiling and
the owner’s own admission of salary, and adopted the
correct age factor for a 20-year-old workman. The
quantification is strictly in accordance with statutory
provisions and does not disclose any legal infirmity.
The award of simple interest is also in conformity with
the mandate of the Act.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion and the
settled legal principles laid down in Swaran Singh
(supra) and Pappu & Ors. (supra), this Court is
satisfied that no substantial question of law arises for
consideration in the present appeal. The findings of
the learned Commissioner are based on evidence,
legally sound, and call for no interference in exercise
of appellate jurisdiction under Section 30(1) of the
Act.
10
2025:UHC:10951
14. The Appeal from Order is accordingly
dismissed. The award dated 18.06.2012 passed by
the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Tehri
Garhwal, in Claim Petition No.15 of 2009 is affirmed.
The liability to pay the compensation amount of
₹5,46,560/- along with simple interest shall remain
upon the appellant/owner as directed by the
Commissioner. The amount of compensation
deposited with the learned Commissioner shall be
released immediately in favour of the respondent-
claimant no.1 along with interest accrued thereon if
any. Due credit be given to the amount already
received by the respondent no.1-claimant.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
18.02.2026
R.Dang
11
