IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU M.A.C.M.A. No.524 OF 2008 BETWEEN: The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager. …. Appellant AND Podecheti Parvathamma W/o. Narasimha and others …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU M.A.C.M.A. No.524 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: Insurance Company is the appellant in this appeal. The company questions not only liability but also quantum of compensation. 2. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that as per Ex.P-8 Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, the driver of the insured vehicle was not having driving licence at the time of accident. 3. The lower Court commented that the insurance company did not examine the Motor Vehicle Inspector or any other person to prove Ex.P-8. This Court is of the opinion that examination of the Motor Vehicle Inspector is not necessary to prove Ex.P-8. Since Ex.P-8 is copy of police record relating to the accident, it is admissible in evidence in a motor accidents case. At any rate, Ex.P-8 does not read that driver of the insured vehicle was not having driving licence. Ex.P- 8 only reads that the driver did not produce driving licence. Non production of driving licence does not amount to having no driving licence at all. Burden is on the insurance company to prove that the driver was not having valid driving licence on the date of accident. The appellant did not strain itself to examine any transport authorities or to get any endorsement from transport authorities to the effect that the driver was not having driving licence at all. In the absence of proof of driver having no licence, the insurance company cannot escape its liability to pay compensation on that score. 4. PW-1 in cross-examination admitted that after death of her husband, she received Rs.40,000/- from APSRTC in which the deceased was working as driver. She did not say under what head of account the said amount was received by her. Insurance Company’s Advocate in the lower Court did not elicit in cross-examination of PW-1 any details of accounts under which she received Rs.40,000/- from APSRTC. In case the said amount is received as exgratia, it need not be deducted from out of the compensation amount. In case the said amount is received under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, then the said amount is liable to be deducted from the compensation amount fixed by the lower Court. In the absence of any particulars regarding the said amount, the insurance company cannot seek deduction of the amount of Rs.40,000/- from out of the compensation amount. After death of an employee, dependants are bound to receive some amount from the employer towards funeral expenses and also other death benefits. The said funeral expenses and death benefits which are received from the employer cannot be deducted from out of the compensation amount. Since the deceased was a salaried employee in APSRTC, the lower Court rightly determined the compensation amount at R.4,03,824/- basing on his last salary and other particulars. I see no merits on both the aspects raised by the appellant’s counsel. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. ___________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU, J June 17, 2010. KTL