THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1641 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order dated 22.11.2003 in O.P.No.506 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, questioning the grant of compensation of Rs.62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident. According to the case of the petitioner is that when he was got down from a bus at Mallial cross road and crossing the main road, a car bearing No.AP-10-D-6585 driven by the 1st respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which he received injuries and spent money for treatment. The petitioner, therefore, filed the claim petition. The vehicle was insured with the 4th respondent, who is the appellant herein. The appellant filed a counter pleading that the accident occurred due to fault of the petitioner and the nature of injuries received by the petitioner are not proved and the driver of the vehicle was not having any licence and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal found that the incident was due to fault of the driver of the car and taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, a compensation of Rs.62,000/- was granted with interest at 9% per annum. Learned counsel for the appellant strongly contends that the driver of the vehicle was examined as R.W.1 and his evidence discloses that he was not having any licence as on the date of incident and, therefore, the company is not liable to pay compensation. He relied upon the following decisions: 1. Ishwar Chandra and others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others[1]; 2. Sardari and others v. Sushil Kumar and others[2] 3. National Insurance Company Limited v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and others[3]. But in order to avoid the liability, it has to be further proved by the insurance company that the owner of the vehicle knowingly, that the driver had no licence, entrusted the vehicle to the driver. In this case, the evidence of R.W.1 does not show that the owner has not made an enquiry with the driver and he informed the owner that he had no licence at all. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the insurance company cannot be exonerated. However, the lower Tribunal has granted the interest at 9% per annum and the petitioner will be entitled to the interest on the compensation at 7.5% per annum. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed and the insurance company is at liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 11-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1641 of 2011 DATE: 11-08-2011 MR [1] (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 650 [2] 2008(3) SCALE 570 [3] (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 701