THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI MACMA NO.5184 OF 2008 Dated 17th June, 2010 Between: The Regional Manager …Appellant And Kanjerla Laxmi and others …Respondents The Court made the following JUDGMENT This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award in O.P.No.281 of 2005 dated 12.12.2006 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for brevity “the Tribunal”), whereunder respondents 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) were awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”). 2. The claimants filed the above O.P claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- due to the death of one Kanjerla Vijay (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). The first claimant is the wife; second and third claimants are children and fourth claimant is the mother of the deceased. 3. On 10.10.2004, while the deceased was travelling in an auto bearing registration No.AP-23/U-3251, the vehicle was hit by a tractor bearing registration No.AP-23/U-713, due to which the deceased died. The auto was insured with the appellant. 4. The Tribunal formulated the issues; whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., auto bearing registration No.AP-23/U-3251 and whether the claimants were entitled for compensation. If so, at what quantum and from whom. 5. On appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A5, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. On the issue relating to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, based on the material, awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and apportioned the amount among the claimants. As regards the liability of the respective parties, namely, the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company, the Tribunal held that the insurance company cannot avoid its liability to the third parties on the ground that the driver of the vehicle violated the terms of the policy. The Tribunal held that both the owner and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable. The Tribunal however directed the insurance company to pay the amount and accorded permission to it to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. 7. Sri Briz Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, fairly submitted that he is not pressing the issues relating to rash and negligence; quantum of compensation and overloading of the vehicle. The learned counsel, however, submitted that the driver had no valid driving licence and as such the conditions of policy since breached, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable. 8. It may be noted that in order to prove the fact that the driver had no valid driving licence, the Insurance Company got examined one of its Officers as R.W.1. I have perused the deposition of R.W.1. To the extent relevant, R.W.1 deposed that respondent No.1 (owner of the vehicle) was not holding valid driving licence. The Insurance Company, except examining R.W.1, did not examine anyone or adduce any other evidence to support its contention that the driver had no valid driving licence. On the other hand, as noticed, R.W.1, who was the Officer of the Insurance Company, also did not speak to the said fact. Whether the owner of the vehicle had any valid driving licence or not is wholly irrelevant. In the light of the evidence of R.W.1 and in the absence of any other evidence to prove that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence, it cannot be said that the policy was breached and that the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the decree passed against the owner of the vehicle. It may further be noted that the Tribunal, while fastening the liability on the Insurance Company, has permitted it to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. On the facts of this case, I am of the view that the order impugned in the appeal cannot be faulted with. 9. The appeal is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J Dated 17th June, 2010 vrn