THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.Nos.3376 of 2001 and 3086 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since both these civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of same accident, both are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: On 11.07.1997 at about 9.30 a.m. the petitioner in O.P.No.620 of 1997 started on scooter bearing No.AP 37D 6048 along with his father, the deceased in O.P.No.622 of 1997, who was sitting as pillion rider, while they were proceeding towards Tanuku, a lorry loaded with husk was proceeding ahead of them. On seeing the lorry, the petitioner in O.P.No.620 of 1997 blew the horn, the driver of the lorry gave way to the scooter, while the scooter was proceeding, the driver of the lorry suddenly swerved the lorry towards road side in a rash and negligent manner, in that process, hit the scooter and the scooterists fell down. Petitioner in O.P.No.620 of 1997 received bleeding injuries on various parts of the body and his father also received injuries on head etc., and he died subsequently. The petitioners in O.P.No.622 of 1997, who are the legal representatives of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs and the Court below awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/- and further held that the insurance company is not liable as the driver of the offending lorry was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. 4. The petitioner in O.P.No.620 of 1997 claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The Court below granted compensation of Rs.25,000/- and held that the insurance company is also liable. 5. On the same set of facts, in O.P.No.622 of 1997 the learned Chairman of the tribunal held that the insurance company is not liable for want of valid driving license by the offending lorry driver, whereas in O.P.No.620 of 1997, the Chairman of the tribunal held that the insurance company is liable. Both matters are decided by two different Presiding Officers. 6. In O.P.No.620 of 1997 the learned trial Judge held that the driver of the offending lorry did not possess driving license on the date of accident, but he possessed license prior to the accident and subsequent to the accident, there is nothing on record to show that the driver was disqualified in any manner to drive heavy goods vehicle. As such, the insurance company is liable. 7. In O.P.No.622 of 1997, the Court below has not elaborately discussed the reasons, but held that as the driver of the offending lorry did not possess valid driving license, the insurance company is not liable. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment in O.P.No.620 of 1997, the third respondent-insurance company filed C.M.A.3086 of 2004 and aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and not making the third respondent liable, the claimants in O.P.No.622 of 1997 filed C.M.A.No.3276 of 2001. 9. Now, the point for consideration is whether the petitioners in O.P.No.622 of 1997 are entitled for more compensation than what is awarded by the Court below; and whether in both the O.Ps. the third respondent-insurance company is liable? 10. With regard to the first question that is, whether the petitioners in O.P.No.622 of 1997 are entitled for more compensation, the Court below held that on account of the death of the deceased, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.96,000/-, but granted only Rs.60,000/- holding that one of the petitioners is a major. The said finding of the Court below is erroneous, as such, it has to be held that the petitioners in O.P.622 of 1997 are entitled for compensation of Rs.96,000/-. This question is answered accordingly. 11. The next question, which is most crucial as to whether the third respondent insurance company is liable for compensation, there is absolutely no dispute that on the date of accident, the driver of the lorry was not possessing valid driving license. No doubt, he possessed the license prior to the accident and subsequent to the accident. 12. Learned counsel for the third respondent relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. VIDHYADHAR MAHARIWALA AND OTHERS[1] wherein it is held that in a case where the driver was not holding valid driving license on the date of accident, though he had valid driving license before the date of accident and subsequent to the date of accident, the insurance company would not be liable. 13. In view of the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decision, it has to be held that as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license as on the date of accident, the insurance company is not liable. Accordingly, this question is answered. 14. In view of my above findings, the following conclusions would emerge. 15. The petitioners in O.P.No.622 of 1997, i.e., appellants in C.M.A.3376 of 2001 would be entitled for compensation of Rs.96,000/- instead of Rs.60,000/- granted by the Court below with interest at 6% per annum. 16. The third respondent in C.M.A.No.3376 of 2001 and appellant in C.M.A.3086 of 2004 would not be liable for compensation and the claimants in O.P.No.620 of 1997 can recover the same from the owners. However, in case any compensation is already paid to any of the claimants in any of the O.Ps, the same shall not be recovered by the third respondent- insurance company and they can recover the same also from the owner of the vehicle. 17. Accordingly, C.M.A.3376 of 2001 is partly allowed and C.M.A.3086 of 2004 is allowed. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 8th September 2010, Rns [1] (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 701