IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.NO.117 OF 2008. Date:15.12.2010 Between:- The New India Assurance Company Limited, rep.by its Divisional Manager, Secunderabad. .. Appellant/Respondent No.2 And J.Mallesh Yadav and another. .. Respondents/Respondents JUDGMENT:- Insurance Company is the appellant. By Award dated 30-12-2006, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.1317 of 2005, compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- was ordered to be paid to the injured-claimant. In this appeal, there is no dispute about factum of accident and about driver of accident vehicle namely Maruti Van bearing No.AP 29B 4201 driving the same in rash and negligent manner resulting in this accident. Even though the appellant’s counsel tried to put forth arguments relating to quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal, the appellant could not show that permission was obtained from the lower Court under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, I do not propose to consider the question relating to quantum of compensation in this appeal filed by the Insurance Company. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that driver of the accident vehicle/insured vehicle was not having driving license at all to drive the said vehicle and that therefore, there is violation of terms of the insurance policy. Ex.A-2-certified copy of charge sheet filed by the claimant himself shows that the police after investigation filed criminal case against Maruthi Van driver not only for offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 I.P.C., but also for offence punishable under Section 3/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that driver of the said vehicle was not having driving license to drive the accident vehicle. There is no contra evidence on either side. Ex.A-2 proved that there is violation of that term relating to owner authorizing a person having no driving license to drive the accident vehicle. But, violation of that term relating to driving license of the driver will not totally absolve the Insurance Company with liability to pay compensation amount in this case. The respondents’ counsel placed reliance on NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SWARAN SINGH[1] and contended that since the injured-claimant is a third party, there is liability on the Insurance Company to pay the award amount and thereafter, it would be open to the Insurance Company to recover the same from the insured as there is violation of one of the terms of the policy. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that no specific premium is paid under the policy covering risk of passenger of the insured private car. But, the insured obtained private car policy ‘B’ package i.e., comprehensive policy paying a total premium of Rs.6,178/- inclusive of service tax for the accident vehicle. Therefore, the insurance policy covers risk of passengers travelling in the private car also. It is contended by the respondents’ counsel that as per recent I.R.D.A. guidelines, tariff collected under comprehensive policy includes the tariff covering risk of passengers in the private car. Since the injured-claimant herein is a third party to the insurance policy, Swaran Singh (1 supra) of the Supreme Court is applicable to this case in all fours. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs, but giving liberty to the Insurance Company/appellant to recover the amount payable under the Award from the insured, after making the said payment to the injured-claimant. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 15th December 2010 AMD [1] 2004(3) Supreme Court Cases 297