It is needless to say that now it is for the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation in view of the stand taken that the deceased was a conductor of the bus owned by the employer concerned.Ĩ. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Commissioner to the extent of putting the liability on the insurance company is set aside and the rest of the order however, remains unaltered. So far as the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondent that, in the FIR there is a mention to the effect that the accident took place when the deceased was issuing tickets and as such, there is material to show that the deceased was a conductor in the bus, is concerned in my view, even the above submission does not take the case of the respondents any further because, the requirement of Section 29 of the Motor Vehicles Act with regard to possessing the licence of conductor has not been fulfilled in the instant case as already referred to by me above.ħ. Under the above circumstances, when there was no iota of evidence placed either oral or documentary to the effect that the deceased was a conductor travelling in the bus in question, the Commissioner could not have burdened the appellant with the liability to pay the compensation amount. Thirdly, the employer though appeared before the Commissioner, did not take the trouble of filing any statement supporting the stand of the claimants that the deceased was a conductor. No licence is produced to show that the deceased possessed the conductor-licence as required under Section 29 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
![united india insurance company ltd bangalore united india insurance company ltd bangalore](https://img.fresherslive.com/private-jobs/images/mjobs/2021/08/13/coral-bling-services-private-limited-hiring-for-team-leader-assistant-manager-quality-analyst-mis-pan-india-29464635.png)
The mother of the deceased, nowhere in her evidence has stated that the deceased was a conductor in the bus that met with an accident. Having heard the submissions made as above I have carefully gone through the material on record as well as the evidence of the parties. L.J 66 to contend that even if no licence was there to show that the deceased was a conductor, yet, the insurance company cannot escape from its liability.Ħ. This argument was countered by the learned Counsel for the respondent by placing reliance on a decision reported in the case of National Insurance Company, Bangalore v. 123 of 2004, when the conductor did not possess the required licence as per Section 29 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Commissioner was in error in fixing the liability on the appellant. Learned Counsel Sri A.M Venkatesh for the appellant also submitted that no licence was also produced in proof of the fact that the deceased was a conductor and such being the case, in the light of the ruling of this Court in M.F.A No. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the deceased was, in fact, a conductor in the bus and therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference.ĥ.
![united india insurance company ltd bangalore united india insurance company ltd bangalore](https://studychacha.com/img/q/United-India-Insurance-Company-Limited-Motorcycle-Insurance-Renewal.jpg)
The grievance of the appellant is that the deceased was neither a cleaner nor a conductor in the bus in question and there is absolutely no evidence placed to the effect that the deceased was a conductor, and in that capacity, he was going in the bus.Ĥ. 2,03,850/- as compensation and fixed the liability on the appellant-insurance company. The Commissioner after examining the material on record awarded a sum of Rs.
![united india insurance company ltd bangalore united india insurance company ltd bangalore](https://sulcdn.azureedge.net/biz-live/img/25635-2554308-28022017132342.jpeg)
The appellant-insurance company has called in question, the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation allowing the claim petition filed by the respondents in respect of the death of one Dhananjaya alias Jayanna in a road accident.ģ. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.Ģ.