IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No.1850 OF 2007 Between: The National Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Divisional Manager, Anantapur ..... APPELLANT AND G. Lakshmi Devi and another ..... RESPONDENTS a n d M.A.C.M.A.No.364 of 2008 Between: G. Lakshmi Devi ..... APPELLANT AND B. Nagesh and another ..... RESPONDENTS COMMON JUDGMENT: Both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the same award in O.P.No.115 of 2004, dated 12-02-2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantapur (Fast Track Court). MACMA No.1850 of 2007 is filed by the Insurance Company to the extent the order fastened the liability on it. MACMA No.364 of 2008 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. Hence, both the appeals are clubbed and disposed of by this common order. 2. By the said award the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.43,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the first respondent (claimant). The second respondent herein is the owner of the vehicle. 3. The claimant filed the O.P. stating that on 28-02-2002 she along with her son-in-law were proceeding on a Moped to go to Pothukunta from Dharmavaram and when they were at Venkateswara Rice Mill, a tractor-trailer bearing registration No.AP02-T-8646 and 8647, driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver hit the Moped due to which both the claimant and her son-in-law fell down and sustained grievous injuries. On account of the injuries suffered, the claimant filed the O.P. and sought for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 4. The second respondent – owner of the vehicle remained exparte. The appellant – insurance company contested the claim on merits. 5. The Tribunal formulated issues whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and whether the claimant was entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from which respondent. 6. The claimant examined herself as PW-1. Ex.A-1 (attested copy of First Information Report in Cr.No.9/2002 of P.S. Pothukunta), Ex.A-2 (attested copy of insurance policy), Ex.A-3 (wound certificate), Ex.A-4 (certified copy of charge-sheet), Ex.A- 5 (bunch of medical bills) and Ex.A-6 (disability certificate) were marked on behalf of the claimant. The appellant – insurance company examined its Senior Assistant as RW-1 and one C.S. Satyanarayana Rao, Junior Assistant of the office of RTO as RW- 2. Ex.B-1 (copy of insurance policy), Ex.B-2 (extract of driving licence), Ex.B-3 (authorization to R-2 to give evidence) and Ex.B-4 (extract of driving licence) were marked on behalf of the insurance company. 7. On a consideration of the evidence and the material on record the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal also held that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs.20,000/- each) for the fractures and Rs.3000/- for the simple injuries, in total Rs.43,000/-. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – insurance company in M.A.C.M.A.No.1850 of 2007 would contend that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence and as such, since the policy conditions are violated, there is no obligation on its part to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. The learned counsel would rely on the evidence of RWs-1 and 2 to support the said contention. The learned counsel would further submit that although the said objection was raised the Tribunal did not even advert the same. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimant would dispute the said fact and would contend that the driver had a valid licence and the same was in force as on the date of accident. 10. It is true that the appellant – insurance company in M.A.C.M.A.No.1850 of 2007 specifically raised the objection that the driver of the offending vehicle had no licence and also adduced evidence through RWs.1 and 2. It is also true that the Tribunal did not consider the said evidence. This being an appeal, I am inclined to consider the same in order to finally dispose of the matter. 11. RW-1 is a Senior Assistant working in the appellant – insurance company at Anantpur. In his evidence he stated that the offending vehicle was a tractor-trailer driven by one S. Nagaraju of Dharmavaram at the time of accident. He stated that the driver did not possess valid driving licence to drive tractor-trailer at the time of accident. He only possessed driving licence to drive transport and non-transport vehicles but not specific licence to drive tractor- trailer. He also stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself and disputed the claim made by the claimants. He denied the suggestion that Ex.B- 2 is the driving licence and the same was in force on the date of the accident. 12. RW-2 is working as Junior Assistant in the RTOs office Anantapur. In his evidence he stated that the driver Nagaraju did not possess valid and subsisting driving licence to drive the tractor-trailer. In the cross-examination he however, admitted that the driving licence Ex.B-2 was in force from 15-09-1997 to 25-08-2003. He also admitted that the driver as per Ex.B-4 (equivalent to Ex.B-2) had valid driving licence to drive tractor-trailer and heavy goods vehicles. Although both the witnesses admit that the driver Nagaraju had licence, their version appears to be that there was no licence specifically authorising to drive the tractor-trailer. According to them unless the licence indicates as authorizing to drive the combination, the licence cannot be treated as valid driving licence. 13. It is therefore necessary to examine Ex.B-2 (equivalent to Ex.B-4) driving licence. The said licence has been issued by the Additional Licencing Authority, Anantapur in favour of S.Nagaraju. Admittedly, he was the driver. Originally the said licence was issued on 05-09-1979. It shows that the said licence endorsed as profession – transport valid up to 25-08-2003. It is also endorsed as non-transport up to 25-08-2003. Against the licence No.6071979, dated 05-09-1979, class of the vehicle was mentioned as TR (meaning tractor) and the type of the vehicle was mentioned as transport. In addition to the same another licence No.DLEAP002682601979, dated 07-06-1984, class of vehicle was mentioned as HGV (meaning heavy goods vehicle) and the type of vehicle is mentioned as transport. In the column relating to renewal in respect of the licence for HGV the first renewal was on 07-02-1986 and continued up to 25-08-2003 and the type of the vehicle was noted as ‘transport’. 14. The said licence on renewal was valid from 26-08-2000 to 25-08-2003. The date of accident being 28-02-2002, the licence was valid on the said date. Section 10 of the Act prescribes the Form and contents of the licences. Sub Section (2) of Section 10 prescribes that driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, viz., (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (f) to (h) x x x x x (i) road-roller; and (j) motor vehicle of a specified description. 15. Indisputably the vehicle involved was tractor-trailer combination, which is a transport vehicle within the meaning as defined under Section 2 (47) of the Act. 16. In view of the same, the oral evidence of RW.1 and RW.2 to the extent it is inconsistent cannot be accepted and it must be held that the driver had a valid driving licence. In consequence of the same, since the vehicle was insured the appellant – insurance company is liable to indemnify the insurer – first respondent. Although the appellant – insurance company in MACMA No.1850 of 2007 made a feeble attempt to show that the quantum is excessive, having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the treatment received and the medical evidence adduced, I am of the opinion that the amount was reasonably granted and the same is not liable to be interfered with. 17. In M.A.C.M.A.No.364 of 2008 the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal granted Rs.43,000/- as against Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that the Tribunal did not consider the affect of Ex.A-6 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board and the same being a genuine document should have been accepted. 18. Learned counsel seeks enhancement of compensation based on the said certificate. It may be mentioned that the accident took place on 28-02-2002 whereas Ex.A-6 was obtained on 04-05-2006 i.e., after lapse of more than four years. The said certificate does not disclose that the disability is linked to the said extent. In addition as rightly observed by the Tribunal the concerned Medical Officer was also not examined. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on Ex.A-6 and the Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.43,000/- by taking the relevant factors into consideration. There are no merits in the appeal. 19. In the result, both the appeals M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1850 of 2007 and 364 of 2008 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J August 06, 2010. Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No.1850 OF 2007 and 364 OF 2008 August 06, 2010