THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2863 of 2003 Date:18.11.2010 Between: The National Insurance Company Limited ..... Appellant AND Lingisetty Subbaiah and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: None appeared Counsel for Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: Respondent No.2 in M.V.O.P.No.698 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge’s Court, Guntur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the award dated 10.01.2003, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.59,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit towards compensation for the death of a nine year old son of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The manner in which the accident has taken place is not relevant for the purpose of this appeal because the only point that has been raised by Sri A.Veeraswamy, the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the Insurance Company ought not to have been made liable for payment of compensation in the absence of any evidence adduced by the respondents that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. I have carefully considered this submission in the light of the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The accident had taken place on 22.06.1999. In support of the plea of the appellant that the driver had no driving licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle, it has examined R.W.2, who was an Assistant working in the appellant company. He has produced the driving licence of the driver marked as Ex.B-6 showing that the licence was valid up to 15.04.1996. The Tribunal, while dealing with this aspect, observed that R.W.2 was unable to state whether the driver had renewed the said driving licence subsequently in the R.T.O.’s office and has accordingly assumed that respondent No.2 was unable to prove that at the time of the accident, the driver did not have valid licence. In my opinion, this finding of the Tribunal may not call for any interference because in the view of the Tribunal, the appellant has failed to discharge the burden placed on it to show that the licence of the driver was not renewed beyond 15.04.1996. The learned counsel for the appellant alternatively submitted that awarding of interest at 9% per annum is exorbitant. However, I am of the opinion that at the time when the award was passed, the said rate of interest was accepted as reasonable by the Courts and Tribunals. Therefore, I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. For the aforementioned reasons, the C.M.A. fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the C.M.A., interim order dated 18.12.2003 passed in C.M.A.M.P.No.28436 of 2003 is vacated and C.M.A.M.P.Nos.28436 of 2003 and 3120 of 2005 are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th November, 2010 GHN