THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO MACMA.NO.2151 OF 2008 DT.30.04.2011 Between: Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., represented by its Regional Manager, Hyderabad. ………….Appellant Vs. M.Beemaiah and others ………………Respondents. JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 10.03.2008 passed in O.P.No.662 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad the present appeal is filed by the respondent in the Tribunal below. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company mainly urged that the Tribunal below erroneously fastened liability against the Insurance Company, though there is violation of policy and requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal below. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the orders of the Court below. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Court below is sustainable. The appellant herein is the second respondent in O.P.No.662 of 2006. The said petition is filed under Sections 166 and 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation against the respondents for the death of M.Ravi Kumar in a motor vehicle accident on 24.01.2008. The factum of the accident was not disputed. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability against the respondent is not sustainable. In order to prove, the claimants filed Exs.A-1 to A-5 and respondents filed Exs.X-1 and X-2 and Ex.B-2. RWs.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the respondents. It is an admitted fact that the driver of the offending vehicle had driving licence to drive the auto. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the driver is not entitled to drive the auto, which is meant for commercial purpose and thereby there is violation of the policy condition. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the compensation. RW-2 in his evidence clearly admitted that the driver of the offending vehicle had driving licence to drive the auto. There is no recital in the charge sheet that the driver of the offending vehicle had no driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. The Tribunal below discussed the liability of the Insurance Company in paragraph Nos.21 and 22 of the judgment and held that the driver of the offending vehicle had valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle; that the owner of the said vehicle is not known that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence to drive the auto for commercial purpose (transport). Admittedly, the injured is a third party. It is also borne out on record that the injured sustained injuries in the road accident and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto. Therefore, in view of the evidence of RW-2 and non-recital in charge sheet about the driving licence, I see no ground to differ with the finding of the Tribunal below in fastening liability against the Insurance Company. However, the court below granted interest at 7.5% and the same is reduced to 6% by applying the principles laid down in SARALA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRNSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1]. With this modification, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. ________________ K.S.APPA RAO J., Dt.30.04.2011 tjs [1] ) 2009(6) SCC 121