HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2026 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent in M.V.O.P.No.710 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, questioning the quantum of compensation. 2. A claim for Rs.3,00,000/- was made consequent on the death of the deceased Venkateshwara Rao in a motor accident. On 06.03.2000 at about 2.30 A.M., the deceased was said to be going on a motorcycle and when he reached near Gullapalli Kalyana Mantapam, the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AAE 8406 & AAE 8407 going towards Cherukupally came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased died. The 1st respondent is owner, and the 2nd respondent is driver of the vehicle. Respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company. The 1st respondent filed a counter contending that he sold away the vehicle to one Nagula Venkateswara Rao and therefore, he is not liable to pay the compensation. The 2nd respondent remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent, who is the appellant herein, contended that the incident was happened due to the fault of the deceased and further more, there is violation of the conditions of the policy as the driver of the vehicle has no valid driving licence. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence of PW.1, who is the 3rd claimant, granted a compensation of Rs.1,29,000/- payable by respondents Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. 3. The appellant contends that there cannot be any liability against the Insurance Company as the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid licence and reliance is placed as Exs.A.2 and A.4, which are said to be the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report and also the Charge sheet, wherein it was stated that the driver of the vehicle was not possessing any driving licence and charges were framed against him. Therefore, the appellant contends that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount. But, however, the appellant has not adduced any evidence to prove the above facts. The mere mention by the Motor Vehicle Inspector that the driver has no licence or allegation in the charge sheet that the driver has no licence does not mean that it is a proof of the allegation. The appellant has to adduce positive evidence about the investigation or about the particulars of the lack of licence of the driver. The owner of the vehicle was not summoned and therefore, in view of the above circumstances, in the absence of any evidence to prove the claim of the appellant, the mere allegations in Exs.A.2 and Ex.A.4 cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the award passed by the Tribunal cannot be interfered, but in case the appellant can show that the owner of the vehicle has committed any breach, the amount can be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:15.09.2011 INL