THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO MACMA 1260 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The petitioners 1 and 2 in O.P.No.645 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru are the appellants herein. The claim was filed for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- consequent on the death of the son of the appellants herein. The Tribunal found that the accident was due to fault of the driver of the lorry and there is no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the Car. Consequently, an award was passed for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- as against the claim for Rs.3 lakhs and the liability was fixed on the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. The petition against respondent Nos.3 and 5 was dismissed without costs. Questioning the quantum of compensation and exonerating the liability of the Insurance Company, the present appeal is filed. The Tribunal held on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the first respondent. The involvement of the driver of the lorry and liability of rashness and negligence was exonerated. But, however, the fourth respondent who is the owner of the Car was also made liable to pay the compensation without giving any reasons. If there is liability against the 4th respondent, naturally the 5th respondent with whom the vehicle was insured and proved under Ex.B-1 is also liable. But, however, in this case there is said to be a valid insurance with the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal did not give any finding about the insurance of the vehicle but however placed the burden on the petitioners to show that there is no violation of the conditions of the policy and consequently no relief was granted against the 3rd respondent. Evidently, it is for the 3rd respondent to show that in a valid and existing policy, the liability is excluded because of the violation of the conditions of the policy. The 3rd respondent has not gone into box and in the counter also there is no specific denial about the insurance of the vehicle and there is also no specific plea about the violations of conditions of the policy if any. It is well settled that if there is a valid insurance policy, the violations have to be proved by the Insurance Company by adducing some evidence. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal in placing the burden on the petitioners and also making the 4th respondent liable for payment of the compensation is not correct. Therefore, for all the above reasons, the award of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower court for determination of the liability of the Insurance Company and also the quantum of compensation to which the petitioners are entitled to. Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of. The matter is remanded to the lower court for determination of the liability of the Insurance Company and also the quantum of compensation to which the petitioners are entitled to. Further both parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence. The lower court shall dispose of the same within a period of four (4) months from today. Each party do bear their own costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 08-07-2011 TSNR