IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.NO.5321 OF 2008 Date:03.02.2011 Between:- The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Anantapur. ..Petitioner And Boya Yellappa and another .. Respondents ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 07-01-2008, in M.V.O.P.No.222 of 2006 on the file of IV Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident, was allowed in part. 2. The two contentions that were raised in this revision are that the passengers in the trolley attached to the tractor are not covered by policy and the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding a valid driving license of a transport vehicle. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 3. Section 115 C.P.C. provides that the High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to wherein no appeal lies, to satisfy itself on three aspects (i) that the order passed by the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction (ii) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction and (iii) that in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error of procedure in the course of trial, which is material and that it may have affected the ultimate decision. Except taking a plea that trolley attached to the tractor is not insured, there is no evidence adduced to substantiate the same. Ex.B-1, which is the insurance policy marked with consent, shows that the crime vehicle involved was insured with the petitioner from 09-12-2004 to 08-12- 2005. The accident occurred on 12-08-2005. Therefore, the tractor trailor was having a valid insurance coverage. The finding of the trial Court cannot be shown to be perverse or incorrect. 4. Coming to the license, the trial Court observed that R.W.1 has not filed any authenticated document to show that the driver, who possessed driving license of non-transporting vehicle, is authorized to drive transport vehicle. There cannot be any dispute that the burden is on the Insurance Company-petitioner to plead and establish that the driver was not having a valid driving license to drive the transport vehicle. Section 10 of the Act does not differentiate the license for transport vehicle or non-transport vehicle. Section 10(2)(e) of the Act provides license to drive transport vehicle. When the driver is having license to drive a non-transport vehicle, it cannot be said to be a violation of policy issued by insurance company. Further the mere breach itself would not be a ground for absolving the insurer from its liability to pay compensation, unless it is further established that the breach was so fundamental as to have contributed to the occurrence of the accident. In the absence of any evidence, the pleas taken by the petitioner cannot be accepted. 5. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore devoid of merit and accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 3rd February, 2011 AMD