THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2514 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred aggrieved against the order and decree in O.P.No.390 of 2001 dated 20.01.2003 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Adilabad, in granting compensation though there is violation of policy conditions. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The legal representatives of the deceased Boyini Posham filed petition claiming compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs. The deceased Boyini Posham @ Poshaiah while proceeding on foot from Chandrapalli towards Madaram side, an auto bearing No.AP- 1/U-2675, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him resulting in multiple injuries all over his body and was shifted to Osmania General Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. After due enquiry, the lower Court awarded compensation of Rs.9,66,680/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company urged that as the driver of the offending vehicle had not possessed valid licence to drive the heavy motor vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with the liability. He further urged that the lower Court failed to follow the principle in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others[1] while applying the multiplier. The learned Counsel while placing reliance on Sarla Verma (1 supra) further urged that violation of the policy conditions, resulting in non-grant of compensation to the victim on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had licence to drive light motor vehicle and not heavy motor vehicle. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4- claimants, in reply to the aforesaid arguments, urged that the lower Court applied the multiplier of ‘15’ and deducted 1/3 of the earnings of the deceased, but, as per Sarla Verma Case (1 supra) 1/4th had to be deducted as the claimants are four in number and the overall calculation of compensation and the figure arrived at by the lower Court by applying the above said ratio is just and equal to the payment awarding compensation but with slight variation. The points for consideration are whether the judgment of the lower Court is sustainable and whether the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company are sustainable. While going through the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (1) supra, their lordships clearly observed that the Insurance Company in that case had not examined any witnesses on its behalf on the said rule position. In the instant case also, none were examined by the Insurance Company to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was having licence to drive the light motor vehicle instead of heavy motor vehicle. In the absence of any such evidence, and the evidence of PW.1 coupled with documentary evidence, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be swayed by any stretch of imagination. However, the appellant-Insurance Company failed to adduce evidence on that score and the evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is not maintainable. Viewed from any angle, and in the totality of the circumstances, the compensation arrived at by the lower Court is sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. K.S.APPA RAO,J Dt:04.02.2011 usd [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129