THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1426 of 2003 J U D G M E N T: This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 02.02.1998 passed in O.P.No.184 of 1996 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Godavari at Kakinada filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest and costs. The facts, in brief, are as follows. On 29.06.1995, while Sri Kadari Apparao @ Chitteyya (henceforth referred to as ‘the deceased’) along with other cooli workers were going on a trailer attached to the tractor bearing No. AP 5T 3672 and when they reached near Kollavaripalem of Kothapalli Mandal, the 1st respondent being the driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied brakes, due to which, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries, and subsequently succumbed to the same. According to the appellants-claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased, due to the death of the deceased, they have become destitutes. They stated that as on the date of accident, the deceased was earning Rs.150/- per day as an agricultural cooli. Therefore, they claimed Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed their counter-affidavit stating that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Respondent No.3 filed its counter-affidavit stating that there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy concerned and that the driver of the vehicle does not possess valid driving licence and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing No. AP 5T 3672 and trailer AP 5T 2708 by the 1st respondent? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation? If so, to what amount? (3) To what relief? During the course of trial, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A4. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. The Tribunal held that the driver who drove the vehicle in question does not possess a valid driving licence and therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to compensate the petitioners for the death of the deceased, but however, respondents 1 and 2, who permitted the deceased and others on to the said vehicle contrary to the conditions stipulated in the policy, are liable to pay the compensation and accordingly held that the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,31,900/- with proportionate costs and interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Now Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants placing reliance upon Sections 2(21), 2(16) and 2(44) of the Act and Form No. VI read with Section 10 of the Act, contends that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance company from its liability is untenable and unjust, inasmuch the learned Judge has placed reliance upon Ex.B5 which has no legal sanctity. Sri Agasthya Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance company contends that the vehicle was used for the purpose other than the one which was mentioned in the policy. He further contends that the Tribunal taking into account and consideration Ex.B5, the letter issued by the RTA authorities, held that the driver of the tractor has no valid driving licence and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court. The only point that arises for consideration in this Appeal is whether the Insurance Company can be exonerated from its liability or not? A perusal of the provisions of law namely Sections 2(21), 2(16) and 2(44) read with Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act and a perusal of the material available on record clearly show that the driver of the vehicle in question has a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle and heavy goods vehicle, which also includes the tractor. The letter issued by the RTA Authorities i.e. Ex.B5 cannot be a criteria so as to disown the liability on the part of the Insurance company. In the circumstances, the Award dated 02.02.1998 passed by the Tribunal in O.P.No. 184 of 1996 is modified, imposing the liability on the part of the Insurance Company also, but however, it is made clear that the Insurance company is at liberty to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle, pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Angad Kol[1]. With this, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 8th July 2010 ksld THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1943 of 2004 17th June 2010 CVRK [1] AIR 2009 SC 2151