HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1730 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order in O.P.No.211 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, questioning the grant of compensation of Rs.31,600/-. The 2nd respondent in the above O.P. is the appellant herein. 2. The claim of the petitioner was that on 16.11.2000 at about 1.00 P.M., when the petitioner was going along with others in the auto bearing No.AP 31 T 83 from Anakapally college junction, due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto, the auto was capsized, as a result of which, the petitioner received multiple injuries and he was treated in hospital. The appellant herein was 2nd respondent, filed a counter contending that the driver of the auto was not holding a valid licence and putting the petitioner to strict proof of rashness or negligence attributed to the driver of the vehicle. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the auto and granted a compensation of Rs.31,600/-. 3. So far as the contention of the appellant with regard to the driver of the auto was not having a valid licence is concerned, the evidence of RW.1 and the allegations in the charge sheet and investigation clearly go to show that the driver of the auto was not having a valid driving licence. The lower Tribunal also found that there is only evidence to hold the contention to the extent the driver of the auto was not having driving licence since RW.1 had no personal knowledge and as the appellant has satisfied the claim in another O.P. arising out of the same accident and applying the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh[1], the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the appellant. Evidently, the petitioner was travelling in the auto as a passenger and he cannot be considered as a third party in order to apply the principles laid down in the above decision. This is a case where the driver of the auto was said to be holding no licence at all. It is not a case of any defective licence in driving the vehicle. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the principle laid down in the above case does not apply to the facts of the case and the insurance company cannot be held liable. However, it is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that half of the decretal amount has already deposited as per the orders of this Court. Hence the claimant will be entitled to receive the same and he can proceed against the owner of the vehicle for the balance. The appellant is at liberty to recover the amount already paid from the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 18.08.2011 INL [1] 2004 ACJ 1