THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No. 2689 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, in M.V.O.P.No.398 of 2000. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: The appellants-petitioners are the parents of Boya linga Murthy, the deceased aged 8 years studying II class, who died in a motor accident on 02.04.2000 at 6.30 p.m. at Yerrakota village in Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District, while he was crossing road, a lorry bearing No.AP-21-T-8820 came from Yemmiganur side without blowing horn and dashed him, on account of which the deceased Linga Murthy died on the spot. The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh. First respondent remained exparte. The second respondent insurance company filed counter denying the allegations in the petition alleging that the petitioners have to prove all the allegations. There is no specific averment in the counter of the second respondent contending that the first respondent is not the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle is not insured with the second respondent at the relevant time. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in the death of the deceased viz., Boya Linga Murthy @ Lingamaiah, and if so, was it due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 21 T 8820? 2. Whether R-1’s auto rickshaw was insured with R-2 Insurance company and if so, does not policy covers the risk of the deceased? 3. Whether claimants are entitled to compensation and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of R.1 and R.2? 4. To what relief 5. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Judge held that the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh, but dismissed the claim petition holding that there is no positive material to show that the second respondent is owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. 6. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? 7. There is no dispute about the accident and consequently there cannot be any dispute about the petitioners being entitled for compensation, at least minimum compensation of Rs.50,000/- payable for no fault liability. The court below has disallowed the compensation only for the reason that there is no positive evidence to show that the first respondent was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. 8. The evidence of R.W.1, the senior assistant of second respondent company is that as per the terms and conditions of insurance policy, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation in case the vehicle is driven without valid licence, that the investigation revealed that the vehicle was driven by the driver without valid licence. Thus, this witness never spoke about the first respondent being not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The evidence of R.W.2 the Motor Vehicles Inspector is that the driver of the vehicle Sunkanna had a licence for light motor vehicle for transport not for auto as such, he was not entitled to drive autorickshaw with the licence granted to him. In the cross-examination, he has stated that if unloaded vehicle was below 7500 kgs, it becomes light motor vehicle and the loaded vehicle should be 1350 kgs. But there was no specific entry in the licence that Sunkanna was not authorised to drive autorickshaw. No doubt, he has stated that the driver would be entitled to drive only the vehicle to which he was given licence to drive, he produced his driving licence at police station. Thus, Sunkanna the driver of the vehicle had valid driving licence. There is some dispute as to whether he was authorised to drive autorickshaw. But R.W.2 the Motor Vehicles Inspector has clarified that if the weight of the auto does not exceed 7500 kgs, the vehicle should be treated as light vehicle. The trial Court did not dismiss the O.P. for the reason that there was no valid licence. As such, in this appeal that question perhaps would not arise for consideration. The only ground on which the appeal is dismissed is there being no material with regard to first respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle. R.W.1 the officer of the second respondent never spoke about the first respondent being not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. As such, it was absolutely not necessary for the court below to give a finding that the first respondent was not the owner of the vehicle. In the circumstances, I am inclined to accept that the first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and there is no dispute about the vehicle being insured with the second respondent. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for compensation. 9. Coming to the question of quantum, the deceased was 6 years old boy studying II standard and the minimum compensation payable even for no fault liability is Rs.50,000/- and in view of the latest pronouncement of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K.MALIK AND ANOTHER v.KIRAN PAL AND OTHERS[1] the petitioners shall be entitled for compensation of Rs.80,000/-. 10. The C.M.A. is accordingly allowed and the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled for compensation of Rs.80,000/- and respondents 1 and 2 are liable for the same. The interest on the amount of compensation shall be at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. No costs. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Date: 23 .11.2010 Rns [1] (2009) 14 SUPREME COURT CASES 1