HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY M.A.C.M.A. No.3549 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: Questioning its liability for payment of compensation and the quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P. No.1066 of 1996 vide order dated 05-09-2000 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, Guntur, National Insurance Company Limited, Guntur preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The case of the claimants, who are mother and sister of the deceased Phaneendra Kumar, before the Tribunal is that on 24-03- 1996 at about 9-00 PM, while the deceased, a ten years old boy, was on the main road near Sai Baba Road, adjacent to Amulya Towers, bus bearing No.AP7 – T – 2449 belonging to respondent No.1 and being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from Gujjanagundla side towards RTC Complex, dashed against the deceased and rear wheels of the bus ran over the head of the deceased, as a result, deceased died on the spot. A case in Crime No.54 of 1996 was registered by the Guntur Town Traffic Police Station against the driver of the bus for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. Owner of the bus remained ex parte and insurer of the bus alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 4. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the City Bus bearing No.AP-7T-2449 ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so to what amount ? 3. To what relief ?” 5. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the insurance company, RW.1 was examined but no documents were marked. 6. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.57,000/- to the claimants under no fault liability as against their claim of Rs.2,00,000/- fixing the liability on both the respondents for payment of compensation jointly and severally with interest at 12% per annum. Being aggrieved of the same, insurance company preferred this appeal. 7. Insurance company, appellant, mainly questioned its liability for payment of compensation contending that at the time of accident Conductor of the bus was driving the bus in spite of there being driver of the bus and that Conductor has no valid driving licence to drive the bus, as such, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. However, there is no serious contest with regard to quantum of compensation, which is Rs.57,000/-. 8. In the circumstances, the only question that has to be answered is whether the insurance company, appellant, is not liable to pay compensation, as the Conductor, who was driving the bus at the time of accident, has no valid driving licence to drive the bus and not authorized to drive the bus ? 9. RW.1 was examined on behalf of the insurance company. There is no authentic evidence to show that the Conductor, who was driving the bus at the time of accident, has no valid driving licence to drive the bus and owner of the bus has allowed him to drive the bus without possessing valid driving licence. As there is no material to show that the Conductor, who was allegedly driving the bus at the time of accident, has no valid driving licence to drive the same, learned counsel for the insurance company contends that they collected material from the transport authority concerned and it reveals that the Conductor had no valid driving licence to drive the bus, but the same could not be brought on record, as such, the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal to enable the insurance company to adduce material with regard to driving licence of the Conductor, who caused the accident. 10. The O.P. is of 1996 i.e., 14 years old and the compensation awarded is paltry amount of Rs.57,000/- under no fault liability for the death of a ten years old boy. 11. Thus, I see absolutely no case for remitting the matter for fresh disposal at this length of time and perhaps after this length of time the insurance company would not be able to call for the records concerned i.e., driving licence of the Conductor, who was allegedly driving the bus at the time of accident etc. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 22, 2010. PV