THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2180 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred aggrieved by the Judgment dated 29.02.2008 in O.P.No.393 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District. 2. The 1st respondent herein is the claimant and the appellant- Insurance Company is respondent No.2 in the above O.P. 3. The averments in the petition in nutshell are as follows: The claimant filed the above O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 7.1.2006 when a lorry bearing No.AP 28V 3967, hit the scooter bearing No.AP 28H 9242 near Dharmakanta, Bowrampet, while he was going on the said scooter along with his friend. 4. In support of his claim, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and examined Dr. G. Subash Rao as P.W.2 and his co-employee as P.W.3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. R.W.1-Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company was examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked on behalf of the respondents. 5. The Tribunal below while evaluating the evidence on record awarded total compensation of Rs.2,37,600/-. Being aggrieved by the said compensation, the Insurance-company preferred the present CMA. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company mainly urged that the Tribunal below erroneously fastened the liability against the appellant -Insurance Company in the first instance with a rider to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle and therefore, the award is not sustainable. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below is sustainable ? 8. In the instant case, the factum of accident is not in dispute. It is also an admitted fact that the offending vehicle had valid insurance coverage on the date of the accident under Ex.B1. To prove that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence as on the date of the accident, the Insurance company examined its Assistant Manager as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B2 and B3-driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. According to him, the driver had no valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. As can be seen from Exs.B2 and B3, it is clear that the driver of the offending vehicle secured licence to drive transport vehicles on 10.1.2006, whereas the accident occurred on 7.1.2006. Therefore, it can be said that as on the date of accident, the driver is not having proper licence to drive the offending vehicle. The Tribunal below while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kusumrai and others[1] directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimant by giving an opportunity to recover the same from the 2nd respondent herein- Insurer. Admittedly, the Insurance Company did not adduce evidence by examining any officials of RTA. Non-examination of the official of RTC is fatal. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the finding given by the Tribunal on that score by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court (cited supra) holds good. I see no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal below. 9. Accordingly, the apeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ K.S.APPA RAO,J Dt.07.07.2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2180 of 2008 7.7.2011 [1] 2006 ACJ 1336