THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A. CIVIAL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.404 of 2008 Being aggrieved by the Order and decree dated 24.01.2007 passed in O.P.No.405 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum - IV Additional District Judge, (FAC) VI Additional District Judge, Gooty, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company urged that the lower Court failed to see that the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 02V 2534 did not possess valid driving license, which is a breach of conditions of policy, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation and that the learned Judge took the income of the 1st respondent at Rs.2,250/-, which is on higher side and he also erred in granting Rs.70,768/- towards medical bills without any evidence. 3. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant urged that the lower Court while taking into consideration the evidence on record granted compensation reasonably and that the insurance company failed to discharge its burden in proving that the driver of the offending lorry had no driving license and therefore, the appeal filed by the insurance company is not sustainable. 4. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the order and judgment of the lower Court is sustainable? P O I N T: 5. As seen from the impugned Order, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 are marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 examined and Ex.B.1 insurance policy is marked. The factum of accident is not disputed by either party. It is the plea taken by the insurance company in the grounds of appeal that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license at the time of the accident. When the insurance company had taken specific plea that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license, the burden is on the insurance company to discharge the same. In order to discharge the burden, R.W.1 K.N.Chandramouli, employee of insurance company is examined. According to him, he did not verify the records. According to his evidence before the lower Court, in his cross-examination that he did not file any document to show that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license. The insurance company also did not take any steps to summon the records from Road Transport Authority to substantiate their defence. Except R.W.1 none others were examined on that score. Ex.B.1 is also relating to the offending vehicle in question and that the offending vehicle had valid insurance coverage on the date of accident. Therefore, it is amply proved that the offending vehicle had valid insurance coverage on the date of accident and that the insurance company failed to prove that the driver of said offending vehicle had no valid driving license to drive the vehicle. 6. Therefore, in any view of the mater, the finding of the lower Court observing that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly liable to pay compensation holds good. Hence, in these circumstances, I see no grounds to interfere with the findings of the lower Court. 7. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J 21st March, 2011 KSP