IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU M.A. CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1931 OF 2011 Dt.01-08-2011. BETWEEN: The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. …. Petitioner AND Sanaka Mangamma W/o.Laxmana Swamy and others. …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU M.A. CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1931 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 04-09-2001, in M.V.O.P. No.5 of 2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Guntur, whereunder and whereby an award granting compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- was passed in favour of the respondents 1 to 3. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: One Sanaka Laxmana Swamy (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who was a coolie, died on 26-08-1997 at about 8-00 AM, when he was going to his work on Tractor bearing No.AP 7 V – 3179 as driver of the tractor drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the tractor over turned and the deceased fell down from the tractor and the tractor ran over him. Wife and children of the deceased filed the MVOP seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- from the owner of the tractor and the insurance company with which the vehicle was insured. Both the owner of the tractor and the insurance company filed separate counters denying the averments made in the MVOP. The owner of the vehicle contended in his counter that there was no negligence on the part of his driver and that the vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company and that the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation. The insurance company contended that the compensation claimed was highly excessive, that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased; that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence on the date of occurrence of the accident, that petitioners were put to strict proof of the age, income and health condition of the deceased at the time of accident and hence, it prayed for dismissal of the petition. 3. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issued: 1. Whether the deceased died in the accident due to the rash or negligent driving of the Tractor No.AP.7V- 3179 by its driver? 2. To what compensation amount the petitioners are entitled to and against whom? 4. During the trial, on behalf of the petitioners PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were got marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 5. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- payable by the owner and the insurer of accident vehicle with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with costs. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company is that the driver, who drove the offending vehicle, has no valid driving licence at the time of the accident and therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 – petitioners contended that a categorical finding has been recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the driver of the offending vehicle has valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 8. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The quantum arrived at by the Tribunal basing on the evidence, is not in dispute. In view of the fact that a specific plea has been taken by the appellant that the driver was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident, it is for the appellant to establish the same. When a plea is taken that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence, the same has to be substantiated with evidence. Such evidence is lacking. On the other hand, a specific finding has been recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the ex facie record discloses that the driver was having a valid driving licence. Therefore, after appreciation of the evidence on record in right perspective, the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation directing the both the respondents to pay the compensation jointly and severally. 9. The appeal is devoid of merits and hence, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J August 01, 2011. KTL