THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CMA No.972 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company in O.P.No.169 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The injured-claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- against which, the learned Tribunal granted an amount of compensation of Rs.2,51,000/-. Assailing the said award, the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed the present appeal. In this appeal, the Insurance Company questioned the quantum of compensation as excessive and also its liability to pay the compensation. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company that it was proved before the learned Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was having only a license to drive light motor vehicle but the vehicle driven was a heavy motor vehicle and it is the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. He would further contend that having held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, the Tribunal ought to have issued a direction to the appellant to pay in the first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle and also held that the owner shall alone have to pay the compensation. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-claimant that in fact the photocopy of the Registration Certificate Book filed before the Tribunal by the appellant shows that the gross weight of the vehicle was 497 Kgs, the vehicle, therefore, involved in the accident, was not goods vehicle but the learned Tribunal had not considered the said document on the ground that it is only a photocopy but at the time of hearing of the appeal, he submitted a photocopy of the RC Book, which indicates that the gross weight of the offending vehicle was 14750 kgs. However, since the said document was not marked before the learned Tribunal, this cannot be considered in this appeal, since no steps have been taken, the 1st respondent has to prove the contents by producing the original RC Book by summoning any witness from the office of the RTA concerned. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in SARDARI & OHTERS VS SUNIL KUMAR & OTHERS[1]. Referring to the said decision, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that once the Tribunal absolved the Insurance Company from its liability to pay the compensation, it cannot issue any direction to deposit the amount and then recover the same from the owner. However, on the contrary, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, that the Tribunal is competent to issue such directions and the trial Court rightly exercised the jurisdiction in issuing such a direction, which cannot be interfered with in this appeal. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to go though the relevant paragraph Nos.6 & 7 of the decision in the above judgment of the Apex Court, which reads as follows:- “ Although, in terms of a contract of insurance, which is in the realm of private law domain having regard to the object for which Sections 47 and 149 of the Act had been enacted, the social justice doctrine as envisaged in the preamble of the Constitution of India has been given due importance. The Act, however, itself provides for the cases where the insurance Company can avoid its liability. Avoidance of such liability would largely depend upon violation of the conditions of contract of insurance. Where the breach of conditions of contract is ex-facie apparent from the records, the Court will not fasten the liability on the Insurance Company. In certain situations, however, the Court while fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle may direct the Insurance Company to pay to the claimants the awarded amount with liberty to it to recover the same from the owner. The concurrent finding of fact herein is that Sushil Kumar never held a license. The owner of the vehicle has a statutory obligation to see that the driver of the vehicle whom he authorized to drive the same hold a valid license. Here again, a visible distinction may be noticed, viz., where the license is fake and a case where the license has expired, although initially when the driver was appointed, he had a valid license.” From the above decision, it is obvious that since the present case is not one wherein the driver of the offending vehicle has no valid driving license at all and at best it appears that the person who drove the vehicle has Light Motor Vehicle License, which was involved in the accident. Therefore, certainly, the Tribunal issued such a direction to the Insurance Company to pay the amount and then recover the same from the owner since the said direction was issued by invoking its inherent powers. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent claimant that it is not open for the Insurance Company to question the quantum of compensation in the appeal filed by it and it can only be challenged the finding regarding its liability to pay the compensation. For the foregoing reasons, both the points are heard against the appellant insurance company and the appellant is directed to deposit the remaining amount together with interest and it can recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle without instituting any separate suit. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Date: 1.02.2010 mrb [1] 2008 (3) SCALE