HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CMA NO.476 of 2000: Date:23.12.2009 Between: The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Br.Kakinada …Appellant And Sivakoti Kumari and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CMA NO.476 of 2000: JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kakinada challenging the award, dated 16.10.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), Kakinada in M.O.P.No.109 of 1997. 2. The respondents 1 to 5 who are the legal representatives of the deceased-Sivakoti Sreenu filed the claim petition before the Tribunal below under Section Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident wherein the lorry bearing No. AHP-7956 belonging to the 7th respondent was involved. Against the said claim, the learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,70,700/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization holding that 6th respondent driver of the offending vehicle, 7th respondent it’s owner, and the appellant which is the insured, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 3. The finding of the learned Tribunal that the appellant- insurance-company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants is challenged in this appeal by the appellant-insurance company. 4. It is no longer in dispute that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AHP-7956 by 6th respondent, which became final, since the said finding has not been challenged by any of the parties. The contention of the appellant-insurance company is that the driver of the offending vehicle had only licence to drive a light motor vehicle, but drove the lorry bearing No. AHP-7956 which is a heavy motor vehicle/transport vehicle and thereby the insurer committed violation of the stipulation of the policy by allowing the driver to drive the said vehicle, knowing fully well that he is not supposed to permit the driver as such and therefore, the appellant-insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 5. Before the learned Tribunal, the claimants relied upon Ex.A-3 the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, which is to the effect that the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving licence to drive heavy goods vehicle. On the other hand, the appellant- insurance company has examined it’s Legal Assistant as RW-1 who deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle had only licence to drive the light motor vehicle at the time of the accident and not possessed the licence to drive heavy motor vehicle. The appellant also relied upon Ex.B-2 letter with the endorsement of R.T.A. to the effect that the driver had only a light motor vehicle licence. The appellant-insurance company further examined Junior Assistant from the office of R.T.A. Rajahmundry as RW-2 who deposed that the driver of the vehicle had only driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle under L.No.3887/80, dated 14.10.1980. Through him, the relevant entry in the licence register pertaining to the licence issued to the 6th respondent/driver, was marked as Ex.B-3. However, in the cross-examination RW-2 admitted that the endorsement thereon indicates, “the licence to drive the transport vehicle is hereby renewed”. The learned Tribunal gave a specific finding that the copy of the driving licence shows that it is a light motor vehicle and the subsequent endorsement indicating renewal of the driving licence of heavy goods vehicle/transport vehicle was made subsequent to the accident. Since the endorsement was admittedly made subsequent to the accident, it is no longer open to the claimants to take shelter under the said endorsement. Further, Ex.A-3 M.V.I. report is not an authentic document with regard to the nature of driving licence possessed by the driver of the vehicle when compared to Exs.B-2 and B-3, which are more authentic and were duly proved by RWs.1 and 3. 6. For the foregoing reasons, in my view, the learned Tribunal recorded an erroneous finding that 6th respondent in this appeal who is the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence to drive the heavy goods vehicle. The said finding is, therefore, set aside in this appeal and it is held that the 6th respondent has no valid driving licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle and 7th respondent insurer committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy by permitting a person to drive the heavy goods vehicle without having a valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle. Therefore, in this appeal, it is held that the appellant- insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 to 5/claimants. 6th respondent and 7th respondent, who are the driver and owner of the vehicle respectively, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to them. 7. However, the respondents 1 to 5/claimants who are the legal representatives of the deceased who is a petty vendor and whose income was considered as Rs.1200/- per moth by the learned Tribunal and they belong to a remote village in the district East Godavari, it is highly difficult for them at this point of time to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle, whereas it is not much difficult for the appellant-insurance company to satisfy the award and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Further the Motor Vehicles Act in so far as it relates to payment of compensation to the claimants is a beneficent legislation, the object of which is not only to provide compensation, which is just and reasonable, but also to see that the fruits of the award have to reach the claimants at appropriate time. Therefore, Following the ratio in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v BALJIT KOUR[1] and NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v KUSUM AND OTHERS[2], the appellant- insurance company is directed to satisfy the award in the first instance and then recover the same from the 7th respondent- owner of the vehicle without instituting a separate suit. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO ,J Date: 23.12.2009 ccm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CMA NO.476 of 2000: Date:23.12.2009 [1] 2004 ACJ428 (SC) [2] 2009 ACJ 2655