THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A No. 1803 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 28.09.2006 passed in O.P.No. 101 of 2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II-Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. 2. The claimants/respondents herein filed the said O.P seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of one B. Sreenivasulu in a motor accident that occurred on 01.01.2003 involving an auto bearing registration No.AP 21 U 9354. As against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.1,70,000/-. Assailing the same, the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company in the O.P filed this appeal. The claimants have also filed cross objections. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 4. There is no dispute as to the date and nature of the accident. It was stated that as on date of the accident the deceased was 28 years and he was a farmer by profession and earning Rs.40,000/- per annum. On the fateful day, he was proceeding on a cycle along with a pillion rider and at the relevant time, the auto in question came in opposite direction, in a high speed and dashed the cycle, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and was shifted to government hospital, Jammalamadugu, where he succumbed to injuries. The Tribunal taking his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum and also considering the age of the deceased as on the date of the accident, at 28 years and by adopting the multiplier ‘18’ granted compensation of Rs.1,70,000/-. As noted above, the Insurance Company has filed appeal, and the claimants have filed cross appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company strenuously contented that the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability to pay the compensation on the appellant-Insurance Company since the driver of the auto in question was not holding effective driving license to drive transport auto and, therefore, there was a violation of the policy condition. When once there is violation of the policy condition, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, and hence, the Insurance Company is liable to be exonerated from paying the compensation. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited, Eluru, West Godavari District Vs. Dupati Singaiah[1] wherein, it was held that the vehicle driven by a person not having a valid and effective driving license and person having fake licence is deemed as person not having valid and effective driving licence. Under those circumstances, it was held that the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with the liability to pay compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents contended that in the case cited by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, it was a case of a fake licence, but in this case, the driver of the auto in question was having a non transport auto driving licence. It is not the case that he was not having licence to drive the vehicle at all or the licence was a fake licence. 7. Admittedly, the driver of the auto in question was having a licence to drive non transport auto. But he was driving transport auto and caused accident. The decision in National insurance Company Vs. Swaran Singh[2] o f the Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court observed that if a person has been given licence for a particular type of vehicle, he cannot be said to have no licence for driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category, but of different type and further observed that the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the decree and recover from the owner of the accident vehicle. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:- “If a person has been given a licence for a particular type of vehicle as specified therein, he cannot be said to have no license for driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category but of different type. As for example, when a person is granted a licence for driving a light motor vehicle, he can drive either a car or a jeep and it is not necessary that he must have driving licence both for car and jeep separately. In each case, on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing the requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence. 8. Coming to the question of granting of compensation, the Tribunal considered the annual income at Rs.15,000/- and after adopting multiplier ‘18’, granted compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- which in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be on a high side and is just and proper compensation. 9. In the result, subject to the above observations, the appeal and cross appeal are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J April 7, 2011 SP/NRG THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A No. 1803 of 2007 April 7, 2011 SP/NRG [1] 2009 (3) ALD 616 [2] (2004) 3 SCC 297