THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 1088 of 2000 Date:05.12.2009: Between: Kondati Siva …Appellant And T.Venkata Apparao and two others …Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 1088 of 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order, dated 27.12.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in M.O.P.No.70 of 1999. 2. This appeal is preferred by the injured-claimant who filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in respect of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident occurred on 19.05.1996. 3. The learned Tribunal upon making an enquiry into the claim petition, on merits, dismissed the same on the ground that the third respondent-insurance company is not liable to pay compensation since the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. AAS-2943 had no valid driving licence as on the date of the occurrence of the accident. 4. Challenging the said order, the injured-claimant filed the present appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent- insurance company. 6. The learned Tribunal basing on the pleadings, framed the following issues: i) Whether the accident has taken place that resulted in causing the injuries to the petitioner due to the rash and negligent driving of Car bearing No. AAS-2943 by its driver-R-1? ii) Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation? If so, to what quantum and by which respondent? iii) To what relief? 7. Before the learned Tribunal, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked for the claimant. RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked on behalf of the respondents. 8. Basing on the evidence let in by PW-1 who is the injured- claimant and considering the contents of Ex.A-1, true copy of F.I.R., the learned Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, the first respondent who dashed the TVS moped on which the appellant-claimant was proceeding. 9. The learned Tribunal, however, adverting to issue No.2, taking into consideration the evidence of RWs.1 to 3 who were not cross-examined by the claimant and also the contents of Ex.B-2- MVI report, Ex.B-3, true copy of charge sheet arrived at the conclusion that the third respondent-insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in view of the fact that the unchallenged evidence adduced on behalf of the third respondent- insurance company discloses that the driver of the offending vehicle had no driving licence. The learned Tribunal observed in its order that the owner of the offending vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the amount paid to the appellant under no fault liability is sufficient and he is not entitled for any more compensation. However, in view of the aforementioned reasons, the learned Tribunal totally exonerated the third respondent- insurance company from paying compensation and eventually dismissed the petition in toto. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal without affording opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine RWs.1 to 3, abruptly closed the evidence and passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside in this appeal. 11. Perusal of the order passed by the learned Tribunal indicates that the Tribunal has not discussed the issues properly and the conclusions reached by the Tribunal are not supported by convincing reasons. It is not understandable that when the learned Tribunal dismissed the petition in toto, how could it arrive at the finding that the amount, which was already paid to the appellant under no fault liability is sufficient and the appellant is not entitled for any more amount. The learned Tribunal also did not mention in its order as to the nature of the burden required to be discharged by the third respondent-insurance company relating to the factum of the offending vehicle being driven by a person who did not possess a driving licence at the relevant time. The order impugned passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from material irregularity and non-application of mind which is liable to be set aside in this appeal. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. However, in view of the aforementioned reasons, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to decide all the issues afresh after affording opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine RWs.1 to 3 and also permitting both parties to let in fresh evidence, if any, on their behalf. The Tribunal is further directed to dispose of the claim petition within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 13. With the above directions, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date:05.12.2009 CCM THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 1088 of 2000 Date:05.12.2009: