IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A NO.3316 OF 2003 BETWEEN K. Ramanjaneyulu ... PETITIONER AND The Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Company Limited, Puttur, Karnataka and Other ...RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A NO.3316 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the order dated 15-04-2003 passed in O.P.No.111 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Hindupur, the present CMA is filed urging that the order of the lower Court is contrary to law and the lower Court committed illegality in not properly looking into the attested copy of the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle which was renewed up to 07-09-2001 and that the lower Court without taking into consideration the gravity of the injuries received by the petitioner/claimant granted very meagre amount and also requested for enhancement of compensation. 2. Now the point for consideration is whether the finding of the lower Court granting compensation and fixing liability against the owner of the offending vehicle is sustainable? 3. POINT:- As seen from the impugned order, the learned Judge observed that the petitioner failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle had valid driving license at the time of the accident and that the owner of the offending vehicle shall pay the compensation to the claimant. 4. In the lower Court, the injured himself examined as PW.1 and on behalf of the Insurance Company, RW.1 is examined. 5. It is the case of the PW.1 (injured) that he sustained injuries on 20-04- 2000 at 8.30 A.M due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle belonging to the first respondent which is validly insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company. The lower Court basing on the evidence of PW.1, being the injured and documentary evidence under Ex.A1, held that accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The respondent did not dispute the accident. Therefore, the finding of the lower Court is sustainable on the aspect of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 6. The main contention of the Insurance Company is that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit registration certificate and fitness certificate besides its driver was not holding valid subsisting driving license on the date of accident and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the compensation. In discharging the burden, the Insurance Company examined RW.1 who deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid subsisting license and he filed Ex.B.1, the extract of driving license No.1347/H-5/P.3/70-71. As seen from the said driving license, it was renewed from time to time and finally it was renewed from 08.09.1992 to 07.09.1995. Admittedly, the accident was on 20.04.2000 and no rebuttal evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner against the evidence RW.1. So from Ex.B.1, it is quite obvious that the driver of the offending vehicle had no subsisting driving license on the date of the accident. In the aforesaid circumstances, the liability cannot be fastened to the Insurance Company and if any compensation payable to the petitioner, it should be payable by the owner of the vehicle. Hence in any view of the matter, the finding of the lower Court is justified in denying the granting of compensation against the Insurance Company since the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid license on the date of accident and the owner of the vehicle shall indemnify the compensation. Therefore, the finding of the lower Court on that score is justified/sustainable. 7. The next contention raised by the appellant counsel is that the amount of compensation granted by the lower Court is very meagre. As seen from the impugned order and the evidence on record, except the injured none others were examined in proof of the alleged disability of the injured. In the absence of any medical evidence that too non-examination of the Medical Officer who issued the disability certificate, the compensation granted by the lower Court for the injuries sustained by the PW.1 in my view is just and reasonable. Therefore, I see, no grounds to interfere with the filings of the order of the lower Court. 8. In the result, the order of the lower Court is sustainable and the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J February 18, 2011 SP/PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A NO.3316 OF 2003 Dated: February 18, 2011 SP/PN