THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4253 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment, dated 18.08.2003, passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in O.P.No.325 of 1999 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5-claimants claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of Patloth Sardar in a motor accident occurred on 16.03.1999. It is stated that at about 8.00 PM when said Patloth Sardar was proceeding to Turkapally Thanda on his bicycle, an auto bearing No.AP 23 T 4489 dashed him from behind, due to which, he fell down and received multiple injuries all over the body and later, succumbed to the injuries. The appellant-insurer filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the petition. By the judgment impugned, the Court below awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation payable by the appellant and respondent No.6-owner jointly and severally. Disputing the liability, the appellant-insurance company filed the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Court below ought not to have fastened the liability on the appellant as the driver of the auto was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident as per the charge sheet-Ex.A2. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SWARAN SINGH[1], wherein it was held as under: “ When, admittedly, no licence was obtained by a driver We have analysed the relevant provisions of the said Act in terms whereof a motor vehicle must be driven by a person having a driving licence. The owner of a motor vehicle in terms of Section 5 of the Act has a responsibility to see that no vehicle is driven except by a person who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 or 4 of the Act. In a case, therefore, where the driver of the vehicle, admittedly, did not hold any licence and the same was allowed consciously to be driven by the owner of the vehicle by such person, the insurer is entitled to succeed in its defence and avoid liability. The matter, however, may be different where a disputed question of fact arises as to whether the driver had a valid licence or where the owner of the vehicle committed a breach of the terms of the contract of insurance as also the provisions of the Act by consciously allowing any person to drive a vehicle who did not have a valid driving licence. In a given case, the driver of the vehicle may not have any hand in it at all e.g. a case where an accident takes place owing to a mechanical fault or vis major. …….….. It is, therefore, evident from the discussions made hereinbefore that the liability of the insurance company to satisfy the decree at the first instance and to recover the awarded amount from the owner or driver thereof has been holding the field for a long time”. 3. Admittedly, the crime vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurer and as per Ex.B1-policy, it was valid from 16.11.1998 to 15.11.1999 and the same was in force as on the date of accident i.e., 16.3.1999. Inasmuch as the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident as per Ex.A2-charge sheet, following the above said judgment of the Apex Court, the appellant-insurer is directed to satisfy the decree at the first instance and to recover the awarded amount from the owner of the crime vehicle. The judgment of the Court below in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. 4. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:21.10.2010 sj [1] (2004) 3 SCC 297