HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.220 of 2008 Date: 01-07-2011 Between: Munuganti Srinu ..….. Appellant and B. Nageshwar Rao and another ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.220 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Appeal is filed against the award dated 14-11-2007 passed in M.A.T.O.P.No.645 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khammam. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the said O.P. The brief facts of the case are that on 01-03-2005 while the petitioner and one Kamma Ramaiah were going to their village M. Venkatayapalem from Khammam on the scooter of Kamma Ramaiah and when they reached Munneru Bridge, Khammam, an auto bearing No.AP 20 W 2224 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained multiple fractures. He was shifted to the hospital and was treated as inpatient. Therefore, the petitioner filed the petition before the Tribunal below claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards general and special damages. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. The Tribunal below, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by either side, partly allowed the petition through the award dated 14-11-2007 granting compensation of Rs.67,022/- under all the heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and made the first respondent-owner of the offending vehicle liable to pay the compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present appeal. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the finding of the Tribunal below in exonerating the liability of the insurance company is not sustainable. It is his further contention that the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal below is very meagre and sought for enhancement of compensation. It is the contention of the second respondent-insurance company that the driver of the offending auto was issued driving licence only to drive the non transport auto rickshaw and he was not having any driving licence to drive the transport vehicle, and therefore, there is violation of the policy conditions and in view of the same, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the compensation payable to the petitioner by the owner of the offending auto. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order, dated 14-11-2007 is sustainable? In order to discharge the burden, the insurance company has examined RW-1 and filed Ex.B-2, driving licence abstract. Ex.B-2 shows that the driver of the offending auto was issued driving licence to drive the non transport auto rickshaw on 29-01-2004 and it is valid upto 21-01-2024. The entries in Ex.B-2 further show that the driver of the offending auto obtained driving licence for transport auto rickshaw on 25-10-2005 and it is valid up to 24-10-2008. In the present case, the accident took place on 01-03-2005. Thus by the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had no auto rickshaw transport driving licence. Therefore, the second respondent- insurance company discharged its initial burden in proving that the driver of the offending auto had no valid driving licence to drive the offending auto on the date of accident. In view of the same, it is clear that there is violation of the policy conditions and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner placed reliance on the decisions reported in AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. NARENDRABHAI LALBHAI SHAH [1], ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. DASHODA DEVI [2] and NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NIRABJIT KAUR [3], since the insurance company successfully discharged its burden in proving that the driving of the offending auto had no valid driving licence on the date of accident, the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions do not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. However, in the case on hand, the petitioner, while travelling as a pillion rider on a two wheeler, sustained fractures. As seen from the appendix of evidence, the driver of the said two wheeler was not examined. As seen from the policy conditions, premium was paid to recover the risk of the offending auto and its owner. Even on that score also, the insurance company cannot be fastened liability. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any compensation against the insurance company. In view of the above circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal below fastening the liability against the owner of the offending auto while exonerating the liability of the insurance company is sustainable. Further, the Tribunal below, while assessing the evidence on record, correctly awarded the compensation. Therefore, I see no grounds to grant any further amount towards compensation. The order of the Tribunal below is sustainable. Hence, there are no merits in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the award of the Tribunal below. No order as to costs. _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 01-07-2011 YCR [1] 2010 ACJ 15 [2] 2010 ACJ 2207 [3] 2010 ACJ 121