IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.2864 of 2002. Date:30.10.2009. Between:- The United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager. ..Appellant/Respondent No.3 And Morangapally Jangaiah and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 27.06.2002 passed in M.V.O.P.No.264 of 1997 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy wherein the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 5 was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Perused the records. 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 have filed the claim compensation seeking compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- on account of death of deceased Morangapally Veeraiah, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.01.1997. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. Claimant No.3 is the wife. Claimant Nos.4 and 5 are the minor children of the deceased. According to them, on that day, a lorry bearing No.MWC 5049 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and proceeding at high speed towards Sadasivpet, dashed against the deceased Veeraiah near Sadasivpet while he was going by walk as a result of which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died in Government Hospital, Sadasivpet while undergoing treatment. A case in Crime No.37 of 1997 was registered by the police. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 28 years and was earning Rs.50/- per day by doing labour work. 5. The insurer and insured filed a counter opposing their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked on behalf of the insurer. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driven by its driver. The Tribunal also held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. The Tribunal further directed that the insurer shall deposit the amount of compensation with liberty to recover the same from the insured-respondent No.2 in the O.P.(respondent No.7 herein). Aggrieved by the said direction, the insurer filed the present appeal. 7. The findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- are not seriously disputed. The main contention of the appellant is that the driver, who is respondent No.6 herein, was not having a valid driving license and therefore, there being violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal has specifically considered the said contention. R.W.1 – Senior Assistant of the Insurance Company testified that the driver was not having a valid and subsisting driving license. As seen from the Judgment of the Tribunal, at the time of arguments, it was considered by the claimants that the driver was not having valid driving license at the time of accident as mentioned in Ex.B-2-certified copy of the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector. However, the Tribunal, while noting that there was a valid policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle that was in force as on the date of the accident, held that a third party cannot be deprived of his claim for compensation on the ground that the driver was not having valid driving license. Ex.B- 1- copy of the policy shows that there was a valid insurance coverage in respect of the third party. The Tribunal relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company, Shimla Vs. Kamla and others[1] wherein it was held as follows: “when a valid insurance policy has been issued in respect of a vehicle as evidenced by a certificate of insurance the burden is on the insurer to pay to third parties, whether or not there has been any breach or violation of the policy conditions. But the amount so paid by the insurer to third parties can be allowed to be recovered from the insured if as per the policy conditions the insurer had no liability to pay such sum to the insured.” Following the above decision, the Tribunal directed the appellant to initially deposit the amount of compensation awarded, giving liberty to him to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. I n Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Nanjappan and others[2] case, the Apex Court held as follows: “Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court we direct in terms of what has been stated in Baljit Kaur’s case that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondents-claimants within three months from today. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the insured, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount, which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the Executing court shall take assistance of the concerned regional Transport authority. The executing court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realisation by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured.” In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions, the direction given by the Tribunal to the appellant to initially pay the compensation amount with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle is not liable to be interfered with. The appellant is at liberty to recover the amount paid, as per the above order, in terms of Nanjappan’s case. In the circumstances, it is held that there are no valid and justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned Judgment passed by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, subject to the direction stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th October, 2009 AMD [1] JT 2001 (4) SC 235 [2] 2004 ACJ 721 (SC)