HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1584 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the award in O.P.No.630 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge at Adilabad in a claim for compensation for injuries received by the petitioner, who is the appellant herein. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, O.P.No.630 of 2000 was tried along with two other O.Ps and the case of the petitioners was while they were travelling in a jeep bearing No.ATO 819 on 08.02.1999 a lorry bearing No. AEN 954 came in a rash and negligent manner in the outskirts of Andugulapalli village, dashed against the jeep, as a result of which, the occupants received injuries. 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle, 2nd respondent is insurance company. They pleaded that the claim for compensation is excessive. The 1st respondent pleaded that the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent contended that the incident was a case of head on collusion and the driver of the jeep, owner and insurance company are necessary parties. The liability is denied apart from the nature of the injuries received by the claimant. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4, but no oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondents. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record found that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the lorry only and there is no rashness and negligence on the driver of the jeep. The Tribunal took into consideration the evidence of all the injured witnesses. Evidently, the appellant herein has not produced any evidence to show the nature of the incident. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the finding of the lower Tribunal about the cause of the incident cannot be said to be incorrect. 3. The lower Tribunal also took into consideration the fact that the evidence of the claimant establishes the nature of the injuries and the nature of treatment and also there is fracture and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.31,000/- under different components and the finding of the lower Tribunal is supported by documents and also appreciation, hence the amount of compensation cannot be said to be excessive. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the driver of the lorry was not having a valid licence and therefore, there is a violation of the conditions of insurance and the appellant is not liable. Evidently, the petitioners are third parties. 5. In view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh[1], the burden is on the insurance company to show that the driver was not having licence, but in this case no oral or documentary evidence was adduced to prove the above fact. There is no proof that the driver was not having any licence at all. A defective licence or a licence of different nature would not absolve the insurance company from the liability. Therefore, taking into consideration the above circumstances, there are no merits in the appeal and appeal is to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 05.08.2011 INL [1] 2004 ACJ 1