HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1517, 1596, AND 1708 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: All the appeals arise out of the same motor accident that has happened on 09.08.1998. The 2nd respondent-insurance company in O.P.Nos.900 of 1998, 937 of 1998 and 899 of 1998 is the appellant herein. 2. According to the case of the petitioners, they were travelling in the jeep bearing No.AP 1 8897 from Nirmal towards Bhainsa and when the jeep reached near Nandan, the driver of the jeep drove it in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the jeep turned turtle and the petitioners in O.P.Nos.900 of 1998 and 937 of 1998 received injuries and the deceased Kancharla Lalavva concerning O.P.No.899 of 1998 died due to the injuries. The petitioner in O.P.No.899 of 1998 is the son of the deceased, who claims to be dependant on her, a claim for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was made. The insurance company has filed a common counter in all the applications contending that the jeep is only meant for use of the owner but not for the purpose of a taxi and the policy is not covered. At the time of the incident, the individuals were travelled as fare paid passengers and therefore, there is no liability. The driver of the jeep was not having a proper driving licence and consequently, there is violation of the conditions of the policy and the insurance company is not liable for payment of the compensation. The lower Tribunal after considering the material on record, granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- in O.P.No.900 of 1998 and a sum of Rs.61,600 in O.P.No.937 of 1998 and a sum of Rs.2,38,000/- in O.P.No.899 of 1998. 3. The learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the risk is not covered in this case since the First Information Report shows that the injured persons and the deceased were labourers of the owners and consequently, the vehicle being used for different purpose, the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of the compensation amount. So far as the factum of the tranvel in the jeep and also the factum of the incident are concerned, there is no dispute about the same. But, however, it is to be noted that any mention in the First Information Report about the individuals or the deceased travelling in the jeep as labourers can only be taken as they are living as labourers but it cannot be construed so as to infer that they are the labourers employed by the owner of the vehicle. In fact, the evidence of the injured persons clearly go to show that they were travelling in the jeep from a particular place. It does not show that they were labourers of the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, much cannot be argued by the insurance company that they being the labourers of the vehicle they are not covered by the policy. Evidently, the policy was issued as a passenger vehicle and the risk covers nine persons, who were travelling in the vehicle. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the plea of the counsel for the appellant that the individuals are not passengers. In fact, the counter filed by the insurance company itself shows that the deceased was travelling in the jeep at the time of accident, as a fare paid passenger and the insurance company is not liable to pay the same. This clearly cuts at the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, for the above reasons, it cannot be held that the policy does not cover the risk of the deceased and also the injured. 4. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the driving licence of the driver is concerned, the driver was said to be having a non-transport licence earlier and he was only having a transport licence with effect from 09.09.1998, which is subsequent to the incident on 09.08.1998. Therefore, it is not a case where the driver was having no licence at all. It is a case, where the driver was having a particular licence which may not permit him to drive the vehicle. But, in view of the decision reported in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh[1], it is the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation to the third parties even if the driver of the vehicle has got a defective licence. The insurance company is excluded only when the driver had no licence at all. Further-more, the material on record does not warrant the conclusion that the owner of the vehicle knowingly had handed over the vehicle to the driver of the jeep and thereby, which caused the incident. Therefore, on this account also the insurance company cannot avoid the liability. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that so far as the claim in O.P.No.899 of 1998 is concerned, the husband of the deceased Lalavva filed O.P.No.833 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Adilabad, and that application was also allowed and compensation was granted. Therefore, any amount of compensation paid in that O.P., shall be given credit to the amount of compensation payable in this case because the claims were made suppressing the factum of the other claims. It is needless to say that the insurance company has got every right to proceed against the owner of the vehicle for violation of the conditions of the policy. Accordingly, points are answered. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of. No costs. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 23.08.2011 INL [1] 2004 ACJ 1