HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.59 of 2008 Date: 17-6-2011 Between Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, VIP Road, CBM Compound, Visakhapatnam … Appellant/Respondent No.3 and Palepu Tatarao and 4 others … Respondents/Claimants Voleti Dayanand and another … Respondents/Respondents 1 and 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.59 of 2008 Judgment: Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 16-10-2007 in M.V.O.P.No.452 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari district the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. 2. The appellant herein is the 3rd respondent in M.V.O.P.No.452 of 2005. The respondents 1 to 5-claimants made a claim of Rs.3,50,000/- for the death of the deceased Palepu Kameswari. The tribunal below while assessing the evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.1,82,000/- under all heads towards compensation for the death of deceased. Being aggrieved by the same, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently argued that though the tribunal below in the impugned order has observed that there is violation of policy conditions, fastened the liability against the Insurance Company, which is erroneous and the findings in the impugned order are self- contradictory and therefore, the order of the tribunal below is not sustainable. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5-claimants vehemently urged that though the driver of the offending vehicle had violated the rules under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 he was not charge-sheeted by the Police and therefore, it cannot be said that the driver of the offending vehicle had not violated the rules under the said Act. 5. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the order of the tribunal below is sustainable ? 6. Point:- As seen from the impugned order, it is very strange to note that the tribunal below at paragraph 27 of the impugned order observed that the 3rd respondent (Insurance Company) proved that the 1st respondent (driver of the motorcycle) was not having valid driving licence to drive the motorcycle involved in the accident by the date of the accident, that it was also proved that the 2nd respondent (owner of the motorcycle) allowed an unlicensed driver to drive his motorcycle, that the respondents 1 and 2 failed to produce the driving licence of the 1st respondent on demands made by the 3rd respondent and that so, the 3rd respondent had successfully proved that there is violation of policy conditions by the 2nd respondent who is owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. But, in the later part of the order, the tribunal below allowed the petition fastening the liability against the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. 7. From the above, the discussion in the impugned order is self- contradictory. In one breadth the tribunal below states that there is violation of policy conditions and in another breadth, it fastened the liability against the Insurance Company, which, in my view, is erroneous. When once the tribunal below came to the conclusion that there was violation of policy conditions it ought not to have fastened the liability against the Insurance Company. 8. In the present case on hand, while evaluating the evidence on record, in particular the documentary evidence Ex.A-5 attested copy of charge-sheet and Ex.A-4 attested copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report, there is no positive observation that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence at the time of accident. 9. Therefore, it cannot be said that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. In the absence of such evidence it should be construed that there is no violation of policy conditions. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 17th June, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.59 of 2008 17th June, 2011.