THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.1443 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the award, dated 12.11.2002, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in O.P.No.288/98. The second respondent-insurance company is the appellant herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The facts are that the deceased Nune Aruna, aged 8 years died in a motor vehicle accident on 11.10.1997 at about 9.00 a.m. at Papannapet on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AAT 2755. The appellants claimed compensation of Rs.75,000/-. The insurance company filed a counter denying its liability and specifically contending that the driver of the vehicle did not possess valid driving licence. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry No.AAT 2755 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of he respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. 4. On the basis of the material on record, the learned Judge awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- and held that respondents 1 and 2 are liable for compensation. 5. Now, the only question raised by the appellant - insurance company is about its liability contending that the owner of the vehicle did not possess valid driving licence. 6. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any valid grounds for allowing the appeal. The only question that arises to decide in this appeal is whether the driver of the vehicle had valid driving licence at the time of accident? 7. Petitioners claimed that the driver of the lorry possessed valid driving licence at the time of accident. According to the respondents, the cleaner of the vehicle drove the vehicle at the time of accident. He did not possess valid driving licence. The name of the driver is not on record. According to the charge sheet filed in the connected criminal case, the cleaner of the vehicle was charge sheeted and admittedly, he had no valid driving licence. 8. The learned trial Judge in Para-15 of the judgment has observed that the petitioners claimed that the driver of the lorry possessed valid driving licence at the time of accident that though respondents 1 and 2 repeated this plea, the driver of the lorry was not examined, that the respondents have contended that the cleaner of the lorry drove the lorry and he did not possess valid driving licence, but they failed to examine the cleaner also, that in the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the other side, he is of the view that the driver of the lorry possessed valid and subsisting driving licence. This view of the learned Judge is erroneous. Not even the driver of the lorry is examined and the cleaner of the vehicle was said to be driving the vehicle and in fact, he is charge sheeted for the same. Thus, there is absolutely no material on record to show that the person, who drove the vehicle at the time of accident possessed valid driving licence. The owner remained exparte throughout and thus, there was no opportunity to know as to who exactly drove the vehicle at the time of accident and whether he possessed any valid driving licence. 9. Thus, there are absolutely no material to show that the person who drove the vehicle at the time of accident was possessing valid driving licence, it has to be held that the driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident, as such, the appellant insurance company was not liable for compensation. The appeal is accordingly allowed setting aside the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.288 of 1998 dated 12.11.2002 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, to the extent of second respondent alone, i.e. the appellant herein. 10. It is reported by the learned counsel for the appellant that 50% amount awarded was already deposited and the same was also withdrawn by the claimants. As such, it is directed that the insurance company can recover the above amount from the owner of the vehicle, i.e. the first respondent in the O.P. The remaining amount need not be paid to the claimants. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 15th June 2010, Rns