IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN M.A.C.M.A.No.308 of 2005 BETWEEN: National Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Vijayawada, Krishna District ..... APPELLANT (S) AND Mannem Mastanamma and another .....RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN M.A.C.M.A.No.308 of 2005 ORDER: This appeal is preferred by the National Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, in M.V.O.P.No.962 of 2002 dated 16.09.2004. Sri E.Venugopal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant, would draw attention of this Court to the order under challenge wherein the Advocate for the insurance company had contended that the driver of the auto had no valid driving licence. Learned counsel would contend that, since the conditions of the insurance policy stipulated that it is only when the accident has occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving by a person holding a valid driving licence would the insurance company be liable to pay the compensation to the injured and as there is no dispute that the driver/owner of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident, did not have a valid driving licence, the appellant herein could not be mulcted with the liability to pay compensation. The Tribunal, in the order under appeal, allowed the petition passing an award for Rs.95,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit into the Court against both respondents 1 and 2 i.e. the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, and the insurance company. While the submission of Sri E.Venugopal Reddy, that violation of the conditions of the policy would absolve the insurance company from the liability to pay compensation to the injured, cannot be said without merit, it cannot also be lost sight of that the contention urged by the appellant before the Tribunal was only for a direction permitting the insurance company to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle, in case the compensation awarded is realized by the injured from the insurance company. It is not even the case of the insurance company before the Tribunal that they are not liable to pay the said amount, and that they cannot be mulcted with the liability. All that they have sought is for permission to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle. It is no doubt true that the Tribunal has passed the award against both the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company and has not given liberty to the insurance company to proceed against the owner of the vehicle for recovery of the amount. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to modify the order of the Tribunal to the limited extent that the appellant herein is at liberty to proceed against the owner of the vehicle to recover the compensation awarded, of Rs.95,000/- with interest at 9% per annum, in accordance with law. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the limited extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. 2nd September 2010 CVRK